Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Hill survives FAR

Damon Hill has survived its WP:FAR with its little bronze star intact. Thanks to users AlexJ, D.M.N., Phill, Pyrope, and Readro for their various contributions to the 174 edits made to keep the article up to standard. Apologies if I've missed anyone out. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You left yourself out! Well done indeed for spearheading the effort, a very worthwhile effort. Pyrope 20:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Just quickly *ducking* out of retirement here. Great job you've done in improving the article 4u1e. Just for reference here is the version before the cleanup process, and here is the current version. The diff shows a huge improvement in the article. Good work all round. D.M.N. (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Why's my name there? My version was the one that caused all the problems in the first place. :-P --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 21:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Because, like the rest of us, you contributed some of the edits between the before and after versions. And don't be hard on your original work - it wouldn't have been FA in the first place without it and a lot of the changes are due to higher, or at least different, standards now being applied. 4u1e (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't do all that much! Just referenced a couple of things. Still, it's nice to be appreciated! Readro (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Suggest to keep eyes on 2009 Formula One season and Honda Racing F1 due to Breaking News this hour. D.M.N. (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

GrandPrix.com had posted the rumor earlier today, citing many Honda team members looking for other jobs. I'd say nothing should be changed until there's something official, but do agree to keep an eye out. The359 (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it's a given that they're selling up, so there's bound to be a few people adding changes before the official confirmation. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The BBC article says Honda are to make an offical announcement at 5am GMT tomorrow. Schumi555 (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Should Honda be removed from the teams list? (has been removed from the 2009 F1 season article!). As far as I can tell, the team is for sale, and has not officially withdrawn yet. Mjroots (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I think a status quo should be maintained for a while. Honda has withdrawn from F1 but there is still indication that the team might contend. As long as there is confirmation on team withdrawal, things should be kept as they are. A mention of withdrawal on the 2009 season and Honda article is sufficient until further news comes out. LeaveSleaves talk 09:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The team might contend, but not as Honda. I think we can safely remove Honda from the list. Readro (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
If the team still basically exists, then it should still be on the list. The problem is what to call it, if it isn't Honda any more. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It will still be Honda up until the point it is sold or dismembered. Simple. --Falcadore (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
For all we know the people buying it will buy the rights to the Honda F1 name or a billion other things. The team currently had a contract to run next year and until such time as things are concrete, we shouldn't be trying to be a news service. We should reflect the stable facts not the breaking news. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Honda F1 will not compete next season. Having them in an article saying that they will compete is contrary to published facts. Readro (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) I understand your concern. However if we remove Honda's name, what should be the team called? We can't just leave it blank or say "Unnamed F1 team". I think to wait a while isn't exactly a bad idea. In any case, we are detailing Honda's departure and not in any way misinforming the readers. LeaveSleaves talk 12:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Honda have stated they are not competing next season. Whether or not the team that is Honda F1 is competing next season can only be known either next year or when someone says 'It is dead Jim'. At this very moment Honda still have a racing team that has a contract to run next year in F1. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The precedent on Wikipedia is that a change of name and ownership means a new team. Honda may be out, but equally, no replacement is in yet. Take out Honda and add in any replacement if that occurs. A contract to compete is not equivalent to competing. We know that in the guise of Honda F1, the team will not be competing. To leave them in is wrong as they will not compete. To add "Unknown replacement team" is wrong, as that may not happen. To take out Honda F1 now and wait for a replacement to be announced is the only solution which is not factually incorrect. Readro (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
But there is no statement that indicates the team is dead. It has only lost its primary promoter. Such judgments as to whether the team would come back or not is inappropriate at the moment. A team should be removed from the competing only when that team's withdrawal (and not the promoter's withdrawal) is officially declared and FIA has acknowledged it. LeaveSleaves talk 13:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I propose listing "ex-Honda F1 Team" on the tables. It shows that the team still has an entry for 2009, and that the team is no longer "Honda". If no buyer comes, then simply remove the entry from the chart, because three months from now, the team will actually withdraw their entry. The359 (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Surely the team is honda until it is bought? I mean, the sale may not go ahead. Honda may change their minds, the new people may pay to keep the Honda name for some reason etc etc, we should wait until it is the fact before making it so (We don't, based on our conclusion from announcements, put car numbers on competators until the official announcement from the FIA for example). I realise the sport travels at 200+ mph, lets not edit at the same speed. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Honda wont change their minds, Honda wont be involved. What we have to go on is Honda's announcement. Yes, the team is still Honda, but I think people will be able to understand "ex-Honda" better. It's honestly something borrowed from US Navy use. Renamed ships are known as "ex-" for their previous name. The359 (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The team is still named Honda. If it wasn't so you wouldn't have news items such as these. LeaveSleaves talk 14:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
But it wont be, regardless of whether they find a buyer or not. I realize they are officially still Honda, but I think this is a common sense move. The359 (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Like Narson said above, this is car numbers all over again. Common sense vs. official confirmation. I'd root for official confirmation. LeaveSleaves talk 14:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
If you go for official confirmation, why are we throwing out stuff about "Honda might change their minds" and such BS? The only confirmation is that HONDA wont be on the 2009 grid. The only confirmation is that "the team" might be. The359 (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Honda Motor Corp have said that in the future they won't be supporting the company (Honda F1 and Honda...Racing Development is it? The engine chappies). It has not yet come to pass. It is currently news worthy but not really concrete. If the government says it will end world hunger by 2010, we don't announce they ended world hunger. Once they sell the team or shut it down, then we can all run around. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) The source says Honda wont be participating in 2009. To assume anything else doesn't belong here. The359 (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Another definitive statement [1]: Honda will pull out, team would stay afloat for three months. LeaveSleaves talk 15:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking at a source from the BBC that says the Honda are hoping to preserve the team and that the legal being that is the team will still exist (They make reference to contracts still being held for next year which means the legal being of the company will be intact). Just wait for the sale to be sorted out then we can update all the wiki formatting once we know the structure of the sale etc.. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Or, we take Honda off the list now and if an entity called "Honda F1" miraculously rises up like a Phoenix and intends to race next year, then we add it back in? Honda have confirmed they are not racing, we can't assume that they might be. Readro (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
No, Honda Motor Corp have confirmed they will be selling Honda F1 Racing and not backing it (though I have seen some indications they have offered to supply engines and winter budget?). Honda F1 Racing have announced they are seeking new buyers. Honda F1 Racing has not announced it is pulling out of jack diddly. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia precedent, this will be a new team, not Honda Racing F1. Readro (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
(ecx2)Honda might not be racing, but the team is still alive at the moment, as said in the source above. Unless the team is dissolved or formally removed from FIA roaster, it should be included in season article. LeaveSleaves talk 15:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Only upon a sale will the team return. If it returns it will technically be as a new team. The entity known as "Honda Racing F1" on paper will not return. It should be removed. Until a sale happens, the team should be removed and only on a sale should it be reinstated. Competing is not equivalent to holding a licence to compete. Readro (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
But the team hasn't officially left yet!! Only its promoter has left. The team is going to work on and look for another buyer. If it fells to do so in stipulated time, then the team would officially be dissolved. Read the sources please. LeaveSleaves talk 15:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I have read all the sources. The team now known as "Honda Racing F1" will not return as "Honda Racing F1". When this happened with Jaguar, the team didn't appear as "Jaguar Racing but with a new owner", it appeared as "Red Bull Racing", a new entity on paper. Red Bull Racing is officially a different constructor to that of Jaguar Racing. Readro (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) Fine, but removing the team now is acknowledging the fact that the team (regardless of its name) does not exist, which is completely wrong in light of the facts. And it would remain Honda Racing F1 until new buyer is announced or it is officially closed. LeaveSleaves talk 15:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it is acknowledging the fact that there will be no entry known as "Honda Racing F1" next season, which is completely right in light of the facts. Readro (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I've yet to see a statement from Honda F1 that the team isn't racing next year...the summation that the team won't be called Honda Racing F1 is likely correct, it is also however crystal balling the terms of a future contract. It might. It might not. Who knows? If an investor does pick up the Honda F1 racing it will be the same team/same company next year, just different named. Until we know that name and have an article for it, why remove Honda F1 from the list of competators? --Narson ~ Talk • 16:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Because contractually, after the change of owner it will be a different competitor. Readro (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, after the sale it will be. But the sale hasn't happened yet. Really, as long as we footnote the current status of the team, what else can we sensibly do than leave it in under its current name. The debate's long enough already, so I don't intend to carry it on - I just wanted to make my view clear! :) 4u1e (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a footnote is the way forward here. Pyrope 18:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Constructor/team results tables

I've recently been doing some work on team/constructor results tables and I notice there's a fair amount of inconsistency. Specifically:

  • Alignment of driver names. Of the 97 teams/constructors which have "modern style" results tables:
  • 71 have the drivers' names centred within the column (per the standard table format)
  • 26 (including 7 of the 2008 constructors) have the drivers' names left-aligned
  • Flags next to the driver names:
  • 55 don't have flagicons next to the drivers' names (per the standard table format)
  • 42 (including 8 of the 2008 constructors) do
  • Format of the driver names:
  • 88 have the drivers' names in full (per the standard table format)
  • 7 (including Williams and Toyota) only show the surname
  • 2 (Ferrari and Renault) show the full name on first occurrence, then just the surname thereafter
  • 1 (Toleman) shows the surname + first initial

On the assumption that we would like all the tables to have a consistent format(?), what's the preferred format? Personally, I'd prefer to see the names left-aligned. I'm ambivalent about flags. A couple of other points while I'm here:

  • Seven of the results tables (those for Williams, Toyota, Jordan, Prost, Sauber, Token and Frank Williams Racing Cars) have the Chassis, Engine and Tyres columns combined, as a means of reducing the overall table width. What do we think about that? Good thing? (let's do it elsewhere?) Bad thing? (revert to standard table format?) Or something else?
  • Should we include "Points" and "WCC" columns (per the standard table format) for constructors who only participated before the introduction of the WCC in 1958? Currently most such constructors, e.g. AFM, Alta, etc don't have Points and WCC columns; whereas Bugatti does have the columns but also has a footnote explaining that the WCC wasn't awarded before 1958.
  • What should we do when we don't know what tyres were used?
  • Include the column (per the standard table format) but leave it blank, e.g. Tecno
  • Include the column and populate it with "?", as done in Aston Martin
  • Just leave the column out altogether, as done in ENB

Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

My personal thoughts:
      • Driver name alignment: Centered
      • Flagicons by driver names: Yes
      • Driver name format: Full name
      • Combining table columns mentioned above: Yes, should become standard
      • Points + WCC: Points should be there, with a footnote explaining that the points didn't mean anything in a constructors championship. No WCC column.
      • Tyre column: A '?'.

Cadan ap Tomos 12:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

1952 f1 season

We have some articles which differs for reasons that led to use F2 rules in 1952 season, Im trying to find exact info what was the main reason for that, was is that organisation just changed rules or was it forced to change rules because some stables finished racing. I have always though the rules were changed before eg Alfa stopped racing...also how Ferrari just happened to be only team to have modern F2 car at the time... --— Typ932T | C  09:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mike Lang's Grand Prix! Volume 1 says: "At the end of 1951 Alfa Romeo realised that to beat the Ferraris in the coming season a new and more powerful car was needed. In order to finance development costs a government subsidy had been sought but without success and as a result the team reluctantly announded their withdrawal from Grand Prix racing. This, together with the demise of the Lago-Talbot organisation, disintegration of the Simca-Gordini partnership and continual failure of the B.R.M. project left only Ferrari with competitive Formula 1 cars. Consequently race organisers in the main turned to Formula 2 which, in turn, led to the F.I.A. agreeing that the World Championship series would follow suit for the coming season. This seemed a far better arrangement for everyone. Constructors could use the Formula 2 cars as the logical proving ground for the new 2.5 litre/750cc unsupercharged formula due to come into effect in 1954 and, at the same time, there would be at least some opposition to Ferrari." DH85868993 (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Paul Sheldon's A Record of Grand Prix and Voiturette Racing Volume 5 says: "At the end of 1951 ... Alfa-Romeo decided to withdraw from single-seater racing for the time being. Ferrari were well placed ... The San Remo Maserati was quite out-of-date, Talbot were equally uncompetitive and short of money as well. Gordini ... were hardly on par with the unblown Ferraris. The only conceivable competitive opposition to Ferrari was BRM with their fascinating V-16 supercharged machine of great complexity. ... The organisers of World Championship qualifying events ... held off from specifying the Formula that their races would be run to pending the early season non-championship races. If the races were competitive affairs then the World Championship would proceed as planned. If not, then some other solution would have to be sought. The result of this was that the Valentino GP gained an importance out of proprtion to its normal status. In the event things took a disastrous turn when the race was a total flop with Ferrari being, almost literally in a class of their own. ... The results of BRM's failure to appear were devastating. Oragnisers could see immediately that their precious races would be just a bore with only Ferrari competing. Race after race was converted from Formula 1 into Formula 2 and soon the FIA announced that the World Championship would be competed for in Formula 2 cars." DH85868993 (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Grand Prix The Complete Guide is similar, "Alfa Romeo, unable to fund a new car, withdrew from racing, leaving Ferrari as the only serious Formula 1 contender. This led organizers to run their races for Formula 2, for 2 litre unsupercharged engines, which meant larger fields and a greater variety of cars, even if the victories all went to Ferrari." Schumi555 (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Plan didn't work too good though.... 4u1e (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 Formula One season#New car launches

What are our views on sections like the one linked above. In my view, I think the car launches section borders WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it's not really notable in the greater scheme of things concerning of the season. If it has to be kept, I'd suggest turning it into prose, but only mention the main teams. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The cars being a part of the season need a mention in the article and I guess this is covered well in teams and drivers table. I'm on the fence regarding adding such information in the form of prose. Couple of questions too: What do you mean by "main teams" and why bring the discussion here? LeaveSleaves talk 13:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm only on about the "New car launches" table, and none of the other ones. "Main teams" for instance Ferrari, McLaren, BMW or try and put it into prose so it is better. A table like that means nothing to the layman "so what, they launched then, who cares?" I brought it here instead of the 2009 talkpage because there's similar tables in the 2007 and 2009 articles. D.M.N. (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm with you on removing the tables. I also don't find it necessary to mention this in the prose since it's a rather minor part of the long season. Launch information is best covered in the car article itself. This is okay with 2008 and earlier seasons. As for 2009, I can't make up my mind. Since the car articles yet to be created and this information might be of some interest at the moment, I feel the information should be maintained till all launches are over. Of course, this might be seen by some as recentism. LeaveSleaves talk 16:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to see the table of launch dates and locations go from the season article - but you'll probably have a fight on your hands with various passing and anon editors. 4u1e (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we should keep these tables. It is information that can't really be made into prose, as it would be too 'robotic', if you get my drift. Lets just keep it as it is. Cadan ap Tomos 15:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Mauricio Gugelmin GAR

Hi everyone, Mauricio Gugelmin has been flagged for a Good Article Review. The main criticisms are the coverage of his early life and life post-retirement. If anyone could help with these to help save the article then it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Readro (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The article was kept, and before I got a chance to do any major work myself! Thanks to AlexJ. Readro (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
What was it kept as? Chubbennaitor 13:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
It was kept as a Good Article... D.M.N. (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 Brazilian Grand Prix up for FA

Thought I may as well point out: 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix is currently up for FA. Any comments that could be added (with relevance and reason, of course) would be very useful. Apterygial

Thank you. The Newsletter is thankful of your help. Chubbennaitor 17:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Why? What did I do? Apterygial 22:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I think he is referring to your general efforts in improving the 2008 race reports, on behalf of those editors who maintain the WPF1 newsletter. The thought is seconded on my part. =D.--Diniz(talk) 23:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh. Thank you. Incidentally, don't think you have to keep putting my race reports on the newsletter as the selected article every month. Just most of the time :). Apterygial 23:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I third the thanks on behalf of the newsletter... Cadan ap Tomos 00:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. My only real intention is to improve Wikipedia's coverage in an area I am passionate about. I am terrible at the technical aspects of F1, so the sporting side is where I am most comfortable. Once my insane idea nears fruition I shall endeavour to assist at the newsletter, though as it stands my Wikipedia time is used elsewhere. (I realise that comment is far too eloquent). Apterygial 01:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 European Grand Prix

The quality of this article is very terrible. Please help for expand the article. Thanks. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 04:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to it. There are a lot of dud articles in the 2008 season out there at the moment, and I can't work on them all at once (I already have four articles at various stages of production). I'll get there, but not for a few weeks at least. Apterygial 05:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The quality of the article just about matches the quality of the race ;). It will get rewritten eventually (as part of Apterygial's insane idea), but I can't see editors rushing to deal with that one, while there are more interesting races from this season still to be done. AlexJ (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

ManipeF1.com

This is something that has bugged me for probably a year now, but I haven't mentioned it much until now simply because I saw few other people noticing it. However, I know it may be viewed as a possibly touchy subject, so I will tread lightly. My problem is two parts:

  • Is ManipeF1.com a reliable source for F1 articles? Now, this is not a question of whether or not the information on ManipeF1.com is correct, but from the standpoint of Wikipedia guidelines. I know there's been more emphasis lately on using only good sources and not questionable sources or fan sites. My opinion is that ManipeF1.com, although a well maintained site, is only slightly better than a fan page. Looking through our list of FA and GA articles, I found only one race report which used ManipeF1.com in a reference, even though it seems to be more prevelant in lower rated race reports and such, which makes me think others agree that there are better sources.
  • My second problem does not apply directly to Formula One or this WikiProject, but I think the two go hand in hand. Has anyone besides User:Manipe added references or links from ManipeF1.com? Again, let me clarify that I do not find Manipe a bad editor and his contributions to the project have certainly been helpful, but I cannot help but feel that there is a glaring conflict of interest. Edits such as this seem common in nearly every recent race report, while nearly every other edit from Manipe to Wikipedia that I've looked through has been referenced by a news item or statistic from his own website (such as this). Even if ManipeF1.com is a reliable sources, is this not borderline self-promotion?

I may be missing something incredibly obvious here in regards to Manipe's edits and the use of his website, so anyone feel free to knock me upside the head with a cluebat, but this is just something that has irked me and I needed to know what others thought. The359 (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that you've brought it up, I must admit I've found ManipeF1.com a little unreliable myself. I, on the whole, agree that it is not a reliable source. I don't mind it being used for lower-class articles - but I don't think it would ever pass as reliable on an FA. For those that remember ChicaneF1 when I had 1995 Japanese Grand Prix up at FAC, I eventually had to remove it, as it was proven unreliable - I could not be proven that the site does fact checking - there was no evidence that they do fact checking within their website. ManipeF1 I suspect has similar problems; to be honest, I think ManipeF1 would get shot right down at FAC by the reviewers. Onto your second point, this is almost certainly a conflict of interest. I quote from linked page: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." - this appears to be the clear case here. Manipe is inserting links, which appear to be promoting the ManipeF1.com website - which is unreliable by Wikipedia-guideline standards. He's been inserting links from his own site as far back as 2006, which is clearly an attempt to promote his site. Luckily, there doesn't appear to be any copy-vios having taken place here - just the fact that there's a COI involved with the editing which could be linking to unreliable material. D.M.N. (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to point out, I have pointed Manipe to this discussion so that he is aware. The359 (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with D.M.N. here - there is no information on who's behind the site, who writes its content etc. so it would not be possible to justify it as being reliable at FAC. A sharp-eyed reviewer would possibly flag it up as an issue at GA-level as well. Where an alternative (quality) source is available it should be used. AlexJ (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm yet to see anything on ManipeF1 that isn't already available from the FIA website or Formula1.com. Apterygial 23:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
First, thanks The359. The issue has also been bugging me for quite long and I wanted to bring this up. I recall similar protest raised earlier in this project, but I'm too lazy to go into archives now.
As pointed out earlier, ManipeF1 does not provide some unique information that is not present elsewhere. Plus, it is unlikely to be seen well by GA or FA reviewers. In terms of reliable sources, two of the most important criteria is sourcing of the information presented and identity of writer/publisher. The sites disclaimer speaks for itself in this case.

Manipe F1 is run independently and is a non-profit organization. Manipe F1 will not be held liable for publishing unreliable, misleading, incomplete or inaccurate information.

It is also necessary to point out that the site also fails WP:EL under WP:ELNO #1, 2 and possibly 4. As for the case of COI, a simplest solution could be to ask the said user to stop inserting the links. Considering the user's other valid contributions, it would in bad faith to say that his/her primary intentions are to promote the website. LeaveSleaves talk 02:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it should not be assumed that Manipe is doing this out of promotion, either as a primary, secondary, or any goal. My belief is mostly that he doesn't believe he's doing anything wrong by adding links from his own website. The359 (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Folks,

Firstly, thank you The359 for alerting me to this discussion, and secondly, I must apologise for the delay in replying to your concerns.

To begin with, I want to deal with the question of reliability. Could somebody please inform me as to what exactly a Wikipedia-defined reliable source is? What exactly makes autosport.com or itv-f1.com or f1.com a reliable source? I also have questions aimed at two particular sources which have been included in various articles.

  • The first is statsf1.com. I've seen many links to this website as a reference for some of the records, and I'm just curious as to why this website is considered reliable since it is clearly not as big/popular as many of the other sites that are listed as references.
  • The second is f1technical.net. On the newly-created History of Formula One regulations, f1technical is listed many times over as a reference for most of the rule changes. For example, under 2008 it says that wind tunnel and CFD work was restricted, which I believe was amended before 2008 and not actually imposed. Secondly, under 2009 is says that tyre warmers are banned, which is untrue, as they will be banned in 2010 instead. If these are the errors creeping in for 2008/2009, why should we trust the previous years that are referenced to f1technical? Whether or not this site is Wikipedia-relaible, this website is definitely not reliable in the conventional sense of the word.

(Remebering that I am only dealing with the issue of reliability) why would the above sites be considered reliable, while Manipe F1 is not? Particularly pertaining to f1technical references, surely it would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia if those references were replaced by references containing the correct information. If someone were to replace some of those references with Manipe F1 references, why should those references be changed to a different site, especially since the old references have stayed in place presumably since the content was first written?

If the aforementioned websites are not reliable under Wikipedia guidelines, then why can they be kept as references in articles when Manipe F1 is purged from all articles simply on the basis of unreliability? Surely if the above websites are not reliable, then their inclusion as references must be questioned, regardless of who added them in the first place.

Manipe F1 is in regular contact with the FIA, teams and their suppliers/sponsors verifying information and data in order to be as correct and reliable as possible both for news articles and race/testing results and data. Manipe F1 also has sophisticated error-finding techniques in an attempt to find and solve any problems which may arise, mostly aimed at race results. Like any publication or website, errors can creep in, and Manipe F1 invests a lot of time in making sure such errors are kept to an absolute minimum. Humans make errors, as do computers, and even a vague knowledge of statistical theory will tell you that erradicating all such errors is impossible if a human input is involved, regardless of the safeguards or checks you put in place.

I am not 'picking' on the two sites above, but merely using them as an example. I am sure that there are many more sites like them that are cited in Wikipedia F1 articles that are unreliable, in the conventional sense of the word (not that statsf1 or f1technical are fundamentally so).

Again, I would like to remind you all that I am dealing with the issue of reliability. I will deal with the other issues later. I look forward to reading your responses to my reply above.

Kind regards, Manipe (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Just as you Manipe, we are not 'picking' on a particular website. If you feel there are other questionable sources being used, please bring this to community's attention (preferably in a separate discussion).
Now for the reliability. Autosport.com, just like major news sites, has time and again passed the criteria for a reliable secondary source. It comes from well known and trusted magazine publisher and has authors who are well recognized in terms of their knowledge in the area of F1. F1.com stands somewhere between a primary and secondary source and can be trusted for reliability mostly because there is clarity about its publisher. I personally don't prefer itvf1.com and I've heard other editors complaining about its factual accuracy as well. But again a clear known and trusted publisher and some renowned authors significantly falls in its favor.
Now as for ManipeF1, there is no clarity on its publisher, authors and your claims on its factual accuracy. It thus fails criteria for secondary sources. Being a tertiary source once again has significant verifiability criteria and are to be used only in cases when secondary sources are not available.
For details on these terms, see WP:RS and WP:PSTS. LeaveSleaves talk 13:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick question for Manipe, as you say you are in contact with the FIA. On this page, how did the race get listed as the I SingTel Singapore Grand Prix? And on this page, why was the race listed as the X Petronas Malaysian Grand Prix? These are both clearly wrong. Readro (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
To back what LeaveSleaves states, we can't go on "Manipe F1 is in regular contact with the FIA, teams and their suppliers/sponsors verifying information and data in order to be as correct and reliable as possible both for news articles and race/testing results and data. Manipe F1 also has sophisticated error-finding techniques in an attempt to find and solve any problems which may arise, mostly aimed at race results. Like any publication or website, errors can creep in, and Manipe F1 invests a lot of time in making sure such errors are kept to an absolute minimum." simply because you say it. I can say I have contact with the FIA, but there's no real way to prove it,so I can't use that as justification to make edits on Wikipedia. The359 (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I fully understand now that Manipe F1 is not considered a reliable resource, however, how is it that we use autosport.com and f1.com as references, and link to the sites when it is clearly against the respective websites' terms and conditions? And as regards The359's comments, it seems to me that whether or not I can prove Manipe F1 in regular contact with the FIA is absolutely pointless and would not make Manipe F1 a reliable source. It's my interpretation that a reliable source is automatically a source that has been written by a person who has been notified as a respected journalist or a journalist of a respected publication. It seems vague to be frank, but obviously there must be some standard. But surely the need to find a reliable source cannot violate a website's terms and conditions? Manipe (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
As regards Readro's comment, I would like to point out that no longer do new Grands Prix's official names include the edition of the race, therefore there is no official designation and so the race number is open to interpretation. As regards the Malaysian Grand Prix, most races were not held under Formula 1 regs, so I would not consider them to have been a Malaysian Grand Prix as such, nor were any Malaysian Grands Prix included in the world championship at any point, up until 1999. As regards the Singapore Grand Prix, it's my understanding that none of the races prior to 2008 were run to F1 regulations, so I cannot see how it should be counted as an F1 GP. As I said, the issue is open to different interpretations, and just because Manipe F1 decided to do it differently to Wikipedia's editors doesn't make it wrong. Manipe (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Were the terms of service binding on the user (They arn't) there still wouldn't be a problem. We do not use the material in a manner that violates the rights of the authors. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Both websites' terms clearly state that you cannot link to their websites without permission, and F1.com even explicitly forbids deep linking. Why is it that we can just disregard these terms? Unfortunately I don not have a background in Law, so I cannot be fully sure of the terms' enforcement. Manipe (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you're going to have to link us to where they say that? The359 (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Certainly. F1.com, see 'Links' section, and autosport.com see paragraph 6.2. Manipe (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Well I think this is a question that will have to be taken to a higher authority... The359 (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Silence is not consent, at least in British law. You can access the site without ever accessing TOS, you never have to overtly state your acceptace. They can, I am sure, block your access citing that, but not because of some legal breach by you, but because they have the right to put whatever the want in their block list. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you a reliable source? :) Manipe (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Reliable or not there is still a COI issue yes? --Falcadore (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The intention of this thread is to evaluate credibility of ManipeF1. If there is need of discussion on usage of other external links or references, please open a separate thread. Now that Manipe has accepted that ManipeF1.com is not a valid external link or reliable source, is there an agreement on the link's removal from the articles? Also per Falcadore, unless Manipe agrees not to add the links again, we should focus on the COI part of the discussion. LeaveSleaves talk 10:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

LeaveSleaves, as far as I'm concerned, me adding the links are central to the COI issue, so I'll deal with those concerns now. The only reason I add links to Manipe F1 on Wikipedia is either (a) to add something to the article which would otherwise be impossible to show on that particular article and to increase a reader's understanding of the topic at hand, or (b) to cite a source of information that I add or change in a particular article. As regards (b), I feel it is better to add a source rather than use a [citation needed] tag, especially since the information is there and ready to be accessed. I have stated previously that I never object to having Manipe F1 links changed to other websites, whoever makes the change, and I am fully aware that many of the links I add as references are changed to other websites. I am unaware of any time that a Manipe F1 link has been changed and that I subsequently reverted back to Manipe F1. I have certainly not done it in the recent past, but I may have done so much earlier when I started editing Wikipedia, and if I did, I apologise. I never change existing references to Manipe F1 references, as I believe that would be blatant promotion. I believe it is better for the encyclopedia as a whole to have a reference to a particular piece of information rather than have a [citation needed] tag, and force other editors to spend time searching for a particular reference or alternatively, make readers unsure as to the article's contents or its reliability.
As regards (a), it's my understanding that external links are used on Wikipedia in order to offer more material for readers about the subject at hand as opposed to references which are used to verify information in the article. I admit that I regularly added links to race results on race report pages, however this is done to offer additional information to the readers. The vast majority of these links have been removed and replaced with a link to the official FIA result, which includes just the race classification and fastest laps, without me reverting to a Manipe F1 link. The link to Manipe F1 includes much more information than the FIA page, such as grid position, cause of retirement, gaps between fastest laps, pitstop information, race leaders and much more. None of this information is displayed on the FIA page, and the FIA page is only marginally different to the information on the Wikipedia article. The FIA has a lapchart that it publishes after each race, depicting the position of each driver at the end of each lap. Manipe F1 also publishes a similar race lapchart, and the chart adds to the understanding of the race for the readers. I'm sure you all consult a race lapchart before writing a race report. However, Manipe F1 is the only free website (to my knowledge) to publish (what we call) a leader chart, depicting the gaps between the leading drivers at the end of every lap. This graph, although not essential, adds greatly to a reader's understanding of the race, as you can see how far ahead a driver is, something which the lapchart does not, and cannot, show. This graph also complements a race report well, as you can easily see what gap was between drivers at the end of a certain lap. It clearly shows the progression of the race in a way that would be almost impossible to describe accurately and concisely in prose. I therefore believe that it is to the benefit of the encyclopedia and its users that people have easy access to these graphs, and other race information on the same webpage. If however, there is another website that publishes such material, namely the 'leader chart' graph, please let me know. Manipe (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Please understand what exactly COI stands for. The point of discussion is to see if you are in anyway associated with ManipeF1 and is your editing influenced by such association. And please note that explaining the website's extensive benefits is not exactly helping your cause. Majority of contributors here at one time or other visited the site and know what it has to offer. As for the detailed report including time gaps etc., it is an unnecessary statistical information that not many are interested in. Moreover, the reason any of the sites do not give such extensive data is because reproduction and use of such data without FIA's permission is illegal and such websites may face action. LeaveSleaves talk 14:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think speculating on what is and isn't a copyright infringment on an external site is of any real relevance for this discussion. I don't see how any of us (except Manipe) are in a position to know if the data is licenced or not. AlexJ (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not speculating on anything. I'm just trying to point out a probable reason why there isn't such detailed statistics on other sites, as argued by Manipe. LeaveSleaves talk 16:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I hate to sound nagging here but is there a consensus on removal or non-removal of the links? I just don't want this discussion to grow stale and move to archives, only to be restarted a couple of months later from the scratch, proving the effort so far to be useless. LeaveSleaves talk 17:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see the need for "mass removal" from articles, if they are in there at the moment, fine. However, I would advise Manipe in the future not to insert links from his own website as this is a COI. No need for mass removal though. And yes, IMO, ManipeF1 is not suitable for GA/FA articles (I don't think it's referenced in any GA/FA articles, although I maybe wrong). D.M.N. (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there's no need to remove it from Wikipedia, especially as there are numerous websites we reference in lower articles that theoretically don't belong. I also agree it shouldn't be in GA/FA articles (I found only one instance of it in a GA, but I can'r recall which one). And I finally agree that Manipe shouldn't really be adding the link anymore, or anyone for that matter as we should be trying to use better sources for everything, even if it's not GA/FA. The359 (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for being absent from this discussion for the past few days, but I've been busy with the relaunch of the website. As regards the discussion on COI, I would like to quote the Wikipedia article, which says: "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount." In editing Wikipedia, and adding links in race reports to the Manipe F1 results page, I am absolutely certain that the interests of Wikipedia are remaining paramount. As you have discussed, it is your opinion that it is not my aim on Wikipedia to promote Manipe F1, and you are all 100% right. I would do things a lot differently if I were editing to promote Manipe F1, however, my primary aim is to improve the encyclopedia, and the F1 articles in particular. As I said previously, I have never added links 'just for the sake of it', but instead I add links to provide clarity, or to give a user an avenue to improve their understanding of the subject.
I'd like to give just one example. At the Italian Grand Prix, I'm sure you all remember Lewis Hamilton opting for a long first stint, in the hope of just stopping once, but ultimately having to stop a second time for tyres when the rain didn't return. Following the race, it was said, even by Lewis himself, that Hamilton could have won had he not had to stop for fresh tyres. Directly after the race, the information wasn't available to prove or disprove this theory, but with the 'leader chart' graph, it can clearly be seen that he would not have beaten Vettel out of the pits after the German pitted for the second time. Other than for the graph, it would have been extremely difficult to disprove the theory, and would have involved considerable number-crunching. A picture, in this case, did indeed tell a thousand words. This is just one of many cases in which the link I added would have added to a user's understanding, and in my opinion is a worthy inclusion as an external link.
I have read through the external links guidelines, and I strongly believe that the links comply with WP:ELYES, and most definitely do not fall under the category of WP:ELNO. On the COI side of things, as I reasoned above, I believe that the articles benefit from having a link to detailed race results, which can add to a user's understanding of the subject. It's a very similar argument for giving fans access to telemetry (or simlar) data during races - not everyone will want it, but for those who do, it's a fantastic addition, and adds greatly to their understanding and enjoyment. It's not an aim of mine to promote Manipe F1, and I'm editing to the benefit of Wikipedia and its users. I personally cannot think of a more legitimate reason to add an external link... Manipe (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
As I pointed out in my first post, the link clearly falls under ELNO #1 and 2. Please note that the so called "leader chart" that you are advocating comes under "unverifiable research". You'd need third-party sources that should verify the accuracy and relevance of such a chart. Also note that others have stated that you do make other valuable contributions. But since it is clear that you are associated with the website, it'd nice if you don't add such external links, thus clearing you of any doubt. LeaveSleaves 18:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand how the link to race results falls under ELNO #1... The resource is unique in the very fact that there is no other resource to which we can link to under Wikipedia guidelines, and the majority of the information will not be included in the Wikipedia articles, regardless of whether it becomes an FA or not. As regards your assertion that the 'leaderchart' (which is only one small part of the service that Manipe F1 offers) is unverifiable research, the charts can be easily checked against the corresponding chart at FORIX, or in the 'Formula 1 Yearbook' published by Chronosports, whoever has access to those resources. I also don't understand your belief that the charts are not relevant to the races. One could argue that qualifying laptimes are irrevelant also, but they are included within the articles.
I understand that Manipe F1 links cannot be included in FAs due to Manipe F1 not being a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines, but not every F1 article is an FA, nor does an article start out as an FA. Why can the link not be there in the article's youth to inform people of various other data from the race, beyond what Wikipedia can offer. Is that not the function of external links - to offer further reading material for the reader? I'd also be interested to hear the views of other editors on this matter. Manipe (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder of the above unanswered comment. Manipe (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Simply, you are not allowed to add any links to ManipeF1 because it constitutes a conflict of interest. If there is any external link for a race article, it should be to a page on an official website, namely Formula1.com or the FIA's website. Readro (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
References that are not considered reliable sources should not be used, period. An FA means the article has been checked amongst Wikipedia's policies and rules (amongst other things). That does not mean the same policies and guidelines don't apply to start-class articles. They should be followed for any quality of article. AlexJ (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Lola T94/30

Just found myself creating the over-ly interesting Lola T95/30 - which of course never actually raced! Now was there a Lola T94/30 car? I know there was the Lola T93/30 (that raced in the 1993 season), but was there a T94/30 version.

This source says next to 1995: "1996 Lola-Ford T95/30 Another failure after the Lola-Ferrari T94/30 disaster. Tested by Allan McNish. More..." However, a comment on the Atlas F1 forums suggests that there was no such thing as T94/30. A Google search only comes up with 112 hits, which suggests that there wasn't a T94/30.

Also, are cars that never raced - do they actually have notability? IMO, they are notable purely because they didn't race - that's why they are "infamous" I guess. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The notability criteria is that the subject has recieved "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - that is, if you can find references from acceptable sources that cover the article, it is notable. AlexJ (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a typo on the 8W site. The Lola-Ferrari T94/30 presumably means the Lola-Ferrari T93/30 which was dire and raced by the BMS Scuderia Italia team in F1 in 1993. Readro (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Strange, because it's also noted here as an entry on the 1994 season with Badoer and Alboreto driving. D.M.N. (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
That's a provisional 1994 entry list, before the team pulled out. Presumably they guessed that the 1994 car would be called the T94/30 if it was going to be constructed. However it never was. Readro (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I find that list fascinating as it has Alboreto in a Lola/BMS and Williams TD Coulthard in a Pacific. Any background knowledge to back these assertions up? And - how did Alboreto move to Minardi at the last minute? Not sure why Prost is listed at Williams and Senna isn't in at all on that list -- I have no answers for that. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Alboreto (and Badoer) drove Lolas for Scuderia Italia in 1993. Scuderia Italia and Minardi merged at the end of the year, retaining the Minardi name and one driver from each team - which is how Alboreto ended up at Minardi in 1994. Coulthard drove for Pacific in F3000 in 1993, so I guess the expectation/assumption was that he would drive them in F1 the following year. As for Prost and Senna - that's a little more difficult to explain - the page was last updated on 12th October 1993, which is after Prost announced his retirement (at the 1993 Portuguese GP). I don't recall Senna announcing before the end of 1993 that he wouldn't be driving for McLaren in 1994 (as Prost had done in 1989) or exactly when it was confirmed that Senna would drive for Williams in 1994 - perhaps whoever compiled the list just hadn't got around to replacing Prost's name with Senna's yet?
Ah, OK. I don't think there's anything "concrete" then to build an article around for that one then (unless any book sources or anything come flying in!). Thanks guys, D.M.N. (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Just for final clarification, Lola's own Heritage website lists the T93/30 Formula One car and T95/30 Formula One testbed, but no T94/30, so it's pretty likely there is no such thing. The359 (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Formula one rule changes since 1950

I'm not sure about this (recently created) page. I think the layout needs to be changed into proper prose, and probably needs a new title. I'd be tempted to AFD it, but there is meaningful prose in there. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

My instinct is to keep it. Although it needs cleaning up, it appears to be fairly comprehensive and well-referenced at first glance.--Diniz(talk) 10:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it may be too comprehensive. I mean, it's almost like it's just short of us having an article printing the current Formula One rules, all of them. The359 (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I like it. I had a very brief glance at it, but I think it has the potential to be really useful encyclopedically. Obviously, the references need an overhaul and the section titles need work, but really I think it good be a great article for the project. My first instinct upon seeing it was to move it to Formula One rule changes since 1950, but it looks like Diniz already did that. No AFD. Apterygial 11:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
What do people think of changing the name of the article to History of Formula One regulations (since it was spawned from the "History" section of the Formula One regulations article, and that's effectively what it's describing). Removing "1950" from the title would also allow scope for the article to cover any changes from 1946-1950 (if there were any). DH85868993 (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep. I'd agree with that. Apterygial 04:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with DH. D.M.N. (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it. DH85868993 (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


One more FA

2008 Brazilian Grand Prix just passed its FAC. Big thanks to everyone who helped me get it there (D.M.N., Diniz, LeaveSleaves, AlexJ and 4u1e; especially). Thanks also to those who commented on it at FAC. I haven't been on Wikipedia for all that long, and I want everyone at WP:F1 to know that you've made it very easy to learn. If anyone wants to help with my plan to get this last season to Featured topic standard, check out my insane idea. Apterygial 04:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well done! And thanks to all that helped get it to FA! :) D.M.N. (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Portal Featured article

The portal needs an article! Apterygial 02:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? Chubbennaitor 10:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I could have phrased that better, admittedly. The portal has a selected article, but there is none for this month. I don't know the criteria for selection or whatever, so I can't do it. Apterygial 11:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The Portal is only sporadically maintained at the moment - the last few months of the selected article have basically been me choosing an article from the F1 featured content list that hasn't already been featured in the portal, sometimes even before the new month arrives! Thanks for (indirectly) reminding me for this occasion - I have chosen an article you know well as it was the only FA that had not previously been selected for the portal.--Diniz(talk) 16:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I assumed that would be the article that would be picked, but I didn't want to be the one to do it. Apterygial 00:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this the same thing the NW does? If so, why not use the one Diniz chooses (If that doesn't already happen). Chubbennaitor 11:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It is slightly different. The portal should choose an article from the current stable of FAs and GAs (with a preference for FAs), while the Newsletter (to my understanding) chooses an article which has been active somehow recently (such as Damon Hill for passing FAR or 08BrazilGP for being PR'ed). Apterygial 00:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Then we change what we choose. Simple. Chubbennaitor 12:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-championship races

Just wondering if there's a list of Non-championship Grand Prix's anywhere, i.e. races that haven't counted to points? Or do I just have to look through every F1 season in turn, such as the list as the bottom of the 1950 Formula One season?

Also, for the post-1950 Non-championship Grand Prix races, is there a F1 race report template? These are the boxes at the bottom of every Championship race, such as the one at the bottom of the 1968 South African Grand Prix#References. Ste900R (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I decided to make one anyway. Template:F1 NC race report. See how it works on the 1950 Pau Grand Prix. Please feel free to edit it however you want to. Also, does anyone else think it's a good idea to put these in the non-championship races? Perhaps we could make a separate catagory for them? Ste900R (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not bad. Chubbennaitor 14:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You should just use the normal F1 race report infobox with the line |Type = NC added. See 1980 Spanish Grand Prix for an example. AlexJ (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Sorry I didn't realise you meant succession templates. My objection to these would be that there isn't really a clear and full listing of all championship races. The rounds of a championship are clearly defined, but with non-championship races you have to decide where to draw the line, and there isn't really a clear way of knowing if you have every race held. Do we include Formula Libre? AlexJ (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that we use this websites results, link. That link shows all the F1 results for championship races from 1950 to 1999, and this link shows all the results from non-championship races from 1945 to 1983. I think it's going to be the best source of information we're going to get about non-championship races, and so we should count only the races it has on the website as non-championship races. So if we do use those, do you think the succession template is adequate? Ste900R (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Those websites don't show all of them. The British Aurora Championship races are missing. Readro (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
They're the best we have, and it's not terrific so expect the above. Chubbennaitor 12:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should be using succession templates when we can't be sure that we have all of the races. How do we even classify what counts? Do we count club races for Formula One cars? What about the Historic Formula One Championship? However you look at these, they are all Formula One races. Readro (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Stop being complicated. It's something constructive and helpful. What more do we want. Chubbennaitor 12:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not being complicated, merely realistic. Why not use a navigation template for each year instead? That way there's no emphasis on completeness or order. Readro (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Silhouet.com does not include all non-championship Formula One races, and some that are included were not strictly F1 races. A variety of sources is required, and I have been using a variety of sources, including Silhouet, when creating non-championship race articles. Succession boxes might be handy for events which stretched across many years, such as the Race of Champions or the International Gold Cup, but not really for odd races of which there were many. The accusation of being complicated is a bit naive - non-championship Formula One is/was insanely complicated and a half-assed attempt at organising the articles would be a disaster. I would be in favour of Readro's idea of a navigation template for each year. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That said, a basic successional template for race-to-race non-championship F1 races could be organised but it would require a full list of the races. I have such a thing, but it would violate WP:OR because it took a long time and a lot of hard work to assemble. There is no comprehensive and correct list on the net as far as I know. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The whole reason I started this topic was because I was looking through the old non-championship races, and just wanted to get from one race to the next easier than having to go back to the season page and then click on the next link and personally I think the template is the best way. Also, we do not have to say that they came after another, such as "this was the fifth non-championship race of the season", but instead put "this was one of the many non-campionship races" or something like that. If somebody thinks another non-championship race should be included that isn't on silhouet.com, then they can just say, and then we can include it, such as on Bretonbanquet's list, but for now I think the best way to do it is to just use their list as it's our most relable source unless someone says another one. P.S. Why am I the only one that leaves a space before my line of text when writing these things? Ste900R (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I see your point, but I would be against a succession box for each event in every single case, i.e. with reference to the 1950 Pau Grand Prix, it's OK to have a link to the 1951 race. But in the case of one-off races, it becomes pointless. Also some events switched to different formulae from year to year, and we risk making this over-complicated. I don't have a problem with a single, simple succession box leading to the next non-championhsip race, providing it's the correct one. Silhouet is no more reliable than this site [2], or this one [3], or this one [4] and they all have different lists. Silhouet omits a number of races, but includes the South African national championship races, which were really not of the same level as the other races. There clearly doesn't need to be an article on each of these. I think there would need to be some discussion about the inclusion of certain races due to the blurring of the F1 / Formula Libre line, especially concerning South American (Buenos Aires) GPs and Australian / NZ GPs. This is pretty complex stuff. Part of my list can be seen on articles such as Ernie Pieterse or Giancarlo Baghetti , where I added their non-championship F1 races in tables. P.S. Why do you leave a line of space before writing your reply? It doesn't actually make any difference when viewing the page :o) Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I only used Silhouet because that was the only one I knew about. To be honest I don't know a lot about F1 sites. In the summer holidays at school I may get around to doing the reports for the GP's. I'm a bit busy to do them right now. As for this, I'm not sure what to conclude, I'm really up for saying one non-championship race to another because it is so much easier to navigate the pages, but I can see your points about which GP's to include and which not too. Bretonbanquet, I put the space so I can see who's written which bit, so I can see what people write quicker when responding to them. Also, do we really have to have F1 and Grand Prix motor racing as two completely different things? I mean I know they're not the same but the way it's written, it's like they're from two different worlds or something. Maybe we could put more mention of pre-1950 into the F1 article? Ste900R (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there are many sites that detail all the results, though only some include non-championship results. The more sites you find, the more complicated it seems to get sometimes. I do reports for GPs sometimes, but there are a lot to do and I get in and out of the mood for doing them. As for your last point, F1 and GP racing are the same thing these days, but years ago they could be radically different beasts, and it's important to draw the line between them where necessary. There was no F1 prior to 1950 so there isn't much need to talk about pre-1950 racing at length in the F1 article, in my opinion. Others may differ. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes now exist for all current non-championship race artcles. Anyone starting a new article, please remember to include a succession box. Also, try to keep the articles consistent, i.e. use the same format for results tables etc. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, as far as I can see, there was no consensus. Even you said "non-championship Formula One is/was insanely complicated and a half-assed attempt at organising the articles would be a disaster. I would be in favour of Readro's idea of a navigation template for each year." Readro (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
No consensus, no. And no apparent further discussion, so I went ahead and added boxes for the articles we have already. I actually think it works fairly well, what do you think? There's nothing to say we can't swap it for a navigation template if that's what people want. Time after time, people generally have very little interest here in non-championship articles, and six days went by with no comment - sometimes it's better just to get on with it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't comment any further because I thought the idea was dead, simple as that. I still think that the issue of non-championship races is too complicated for succession boxes. Readro (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think it works so far. The succession as it is at the moment is in line with every source we have. The races from the 60s onwards are fairly straightforward but the 1950s races are where the problem lies, and there are very few articles in that area so far. Any expansion of the 50s races will need a lot of care, however it's organised. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

New year, new drive

Right then, Wikipedians... We have a huge list of 'things to-do', that has stayed pretty much the same since I joined WPF1 about a year and a half ago. WE NEED TO DRIVE THIS ALONG! I propose that we start to organize ourselves. I am willing to co-ordinate organizing giving jobs to Wikipedians who are willing to do something. I suggest that we create a sub-page to WP:F1, and make a list of what needs doing, and people who are willing to do something. They can then be assigned a job. What do you all think? Cadan ap Tomos 21:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea (Y). Then individuals will be able to work at their own speed, and ask others for help/advice when needed. Schumi555 (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm up for doing the GP reports, but can only do it in summer holidays because I'm in final GCSE year. Ste900R (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
And when you're on study leave... ;) Cadan ap Tomos 21:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Something like that. Ste900R (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm... why do we need to organise ourselves, it's perfectly fine as it is, we don't need to "drive" this along, unless I'm mistaken there is no deadline for none of this. You say "giving jobs to Wikipedians who are willing to do something" - we are volunteers, we don't work for Wikipedia - we volunteer. And you sound like you're trying to say most members here do sod all - in which case you're wrong. Every edit counts. Some users (like myself) have a lot of RL stuff to get on with and can't do as much as we'd like on Wiki. The way I see it is that users now anyway work on their own thing at their own pace (i.e. Diniz with his Forti project as of late, me with 1995 a few months back, Apterygial with MII), we don't need to speed things along. D.M.N. (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Take this for an example. The "current improvement drive" has been stuck on Fangio ever since I joined WPF1, and I haven't seen any major improvements to the article. I am not saying that people do sod all on here, I am merely suggesting that some people don't know how they can help apart from one or two minor edits here and there. Giving users specific projects to work on gets things done. There is a huge list of things to-do up on the portal, with more things that haven't been listed that needs to be done... isn't it about time it is done? Cadan ap Tomos 22:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The reason that the improvement drive didn't work is because most people seem happy working on their own things. I like to edit Wikipedia when I want to, not to any particular schedule, because that way it stays fun. If I can't be bothered one day then I just won't visit the site. We're not working to any schedule. It's commendable that you want to help the project but I feel that the project will be more productive overall if people work on what they want to work on as opposed to a job that's been assigned. Readro (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Oops... Did I say assigned above?

My original idea was to have a central place for things to be done, then editors can take individual projects as they choose. I have no idea where the assigned bit came from... :D Basically, it is just a to-do list, combined with a list of who is doing what, and who wants something to do.It helps keep things organized, and makes sure that we don't have two people working on the same thing where there is no need. A guidance for Wikipedians who are lost and want something to edit, but don't know what. Never did I say anything about time and scheduling (well, knowing me I did, but ignore it), more of the sort that there are things here that have needed to be done for ages, and it is about time someone did them. I have started a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/NYND, we may as well carry on with all discussions there... unless you just want to end it all now? Cadan ap Tomos 23:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And for those vaguely masochistic Wikipedians, there is my insane idea. Apterygial 00:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
In case you are missing, there's a to-do list and a task template already. You can definitely use those for your purposes. I don't want to discourage you in any way, but creation of a new page isn't exactly different from working on existent pages. And as for discussion, you can always use this page for that. That way project participants who cannot actively participate in your endeavor (such as me!) are still aware of its progress and can contribute wherever possible. In short, improve existing structure instead of creating a fork. LeaveSleaves 03:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Great. Up to the point you organised everything. I didn't say the ideadue to being the "new boy" still. Sorry. Love to help. Can we add to list of things to do? By the way. The portal can do that. That is what needs to be changed and organised. Chubbennaitor 16:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who is a member of WPF1 can add to the list of tasks. Yes, I know the portal can do basically what this is doing, but it isn't. We have no idea who is working on what. This is the problem. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 18:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
So you can takeover the portal if you'd like to. As D.M.N. said above, we are here to contribute voluntarily and not do things because we are assigned to it. Same is the case with the portal. It isn't like an exclusive job assigned to someone. All I'm saying is that you can undertake your project well within the existing structure without compromising your intentions. Consider a new user who joins the project. How would s/he know which is real improvement drive: To-do list, the portal or NYND? LeaveSleaves 18:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
As I said above, no one will be assigned anything. It is like a supermarket shelf: you go there when stocks of things to edit run low, and there is plenty to choose from. There is then a database there to see what everyone is doing, so we don't get two or more people working on the same thing where there is no need.
Maybe you are right. Maybe it should be done in the portal. Can we just get one page that is a to-do list, and also keeps track of what everyone is concentrating on. Think about it, if everyone knew what everyone else is doing, they can offer references where needed, we wouldn't get confusion of two people doing the same thing... it just makes sense.
I don't know. I'm still willing to co-ordinate something like this; I suppose it is up to everyone what form it takes. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 18:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
If someone's looking for a project, they can either take a driver/team/race they're interested in and improve it, or just go to the Importance/Quality graph and pick something that's down the bottom left of the graph. The improvement drive page has a message at the top which reads "This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." - any references to it on the portal or wherever should be removed. It worked for a little while, when we were short of exemplar articles and needed to decide on various standards but by now it's served it purpose. For all the bureaucracy and organization effort involved, you may just as well pick an article to work on, and ask here if you need help. AlexJ (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Here's my suggestion on your idea on keeping track of progress. Create a page in your userspace where you can list and document progress of various articles. Inform everyone here when you are done with the creation. Thereon everybody who is interested in your drive can monitor that page and give their inputs along the way. Of course as the creator of this.. let's call it userproject, you might have to put in extra effort to monitor and track ongoing development in huge number of articles, nearly 2500, although majority of these are dormant. Then through portal, you can highlight selected developments in your and other known userprojects so that all participants can get a one stop look at various developments. LeaveSleaves 18:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, that sounds good. What for do you want this in - a table, with different grades of 'completeness', per se, or what? Shall I AfD the other project page? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 18:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's where you'd need to get creative. Think of criteria and classification that you intend to put the articles under. Try and start slow, focusing on articles for this season that are under attention right now or would be soon enough. As for the project page, try blanking it and put speedy G7 tag on, pointing to final part of the discussion. If an admin still declines it, put PROD tag. That should take care of it. LeaveSleaves 19:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm. Volunteers get assigned to different tasks to help. The more organised and work like clockwork then the better the product. Who "runs" the portal. I never edited it because I thought it was run by admins who were active at WP:F1. Chubbennaitor 19:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how many admins are active on WP:F1; I know none. And portal can be edited and run by anybody with the desire. LeaveSleaves 20:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Great. It needs to be made more popular with the article of the month stuff. Cadan, where does this get added. Chubbennaitor 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This isn't being "added" anywhere until it is finished. It shall be advertised etc. on the Portal. Actually, I think we need a complete Portal revamp... Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 20:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
On the To-do list. I agree with the Portal revamp and re-ordering. Chubbennaitor 22:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I could help out with the portal revamp. I like that kind of weird stuff. Apterygial 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here is my idea in a nutshell. A page, with a table on it, showing the article, its classification, eventual goal (realistic), what has been done, what is been done, what needs to be done, and the users contributing to the article. Then, to add an article to this table, there is a form that editors can fill in on an article of their choice, with all of those things. What do we think? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 17:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good but where. Chubbennaitor 19:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
In my userspace, for now, with it being advertised on the portal (when I and Apterygial sort that out). There is nothing in existence yet, though; I was merely passing the idea here first. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 20:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

New article: Aintree Motor Racing Circuit

I notice the recent creation of Aintree Motor Racing Circuit, which duplicates some of the information in the "Motor racing" section of the Aintree Racecourse article. What's the preferred way forward?:

DH85868993 (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd support option two. Considering that the circuit was venue of multiple Formula One races, a separate article is valid and can be developed. Trim the Motor Racing section of Aintree Racecourse and put a hatnote linking the new article. LeaveSleaves 06:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The new article also needs to make mention of the Aintree 200, which now has articles on four races, the 1961 Aintree 200, 1962, 1963 and 1964 events. Bretonbanquet (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'd say we develop the new article and link it as a hatnote in the racecourse article. To add to what's already been said, the circuit is still in use for sprints. Readro (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, before we update any links, are we happy with the current capitalisation of the new article, i.e. "Aintree Motor Racing Circuit", or should it be "Aintree motor racing circuit", or something else? DH85868993 (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Capitalization is fine. Go ahead. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 13:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Capitals all round, I think. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
OK. I've moved some of the content from Aintree Racecourse to Aintree Motor Racing Circuit and updated all the links (I think :-) DH85868993 (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest removing the list of Formula One race winners, as this is something I've suggested a while back on this project on similar circuit articles. Aintree held several hundred other races in its history. Formula One winners are easily covered on the British Grand Prix article instead. The359 (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
No objections here. DH85868993 (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

1985 South African Grand Prix additions

I've added a bunch of material on the apartheid issue at 1985 South African Grand Prix and also synopsis-ed this at South African Grand Prix. Tricky thing is that the refs all are newspapers. The text is available online, but only via ProQuest, a pay service.

Also, I couldn't find much on the race action itself so I would be seeking any help there(!)

The reason I am bringing this up is to give a heads up that new material was added in case you want to check the work, and it may need some cleanup. However, I found the inner workings of the controversy fascinating myself. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an important race and the article deserves to be expanded as much as we can. Looks fine so far, and here's a bit on the race itself from gp.com :o) [5] Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Simca-Gordini Type 15

Does anyone have any information about the Simca-Gordini Type 15? The reason I ask is that currently we have Simca-Gordini T15, Simca Gordini T15 and Simca Gordini Type 15, all of which are redirects to Gordini. Which would be fine, except that the Gordini article doesn't actually say anything about the Type 15! (except where it is listed in the results table). So I was wondering whether anyone had enough information to convert one of the redirects into an article, or at least to add a section about the Type 15 into the Gordini article, thereby making the redirects meaningful. If not, I'll probably recommend the redirects for deletion - I think redirects of this type are actually unhelpful, since they mask the fact that the information doesn't exist. (If we do have enough info for a standalone article, the next question is what to call it: "Simca Gordini Type 15", "Simca-Gordini Type 15", "Simca Gordini T15", "Simca-Gordini T15", "Simca Gordini 15" or "Simca-Gordini 15"... DH85868993 (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a complicated business! There was an Equipe Gordini which had Simca support until about 1951, and from then on they seem to be described as Gordinis (with no mention of Simca). But there were also people running Simca-Gordinis, some with Gordini engines and some with Simca engines. Max de Terra's Simca-Gordini had a Simca engine. Certainly the Gordinis always had plenty of Simca bits on them though. The T15 had at least two engines that I know of, which I think were Simca engines that Gordini had upgraded and altered. I should be able to find out more when I have time. David Hodges' "A-Z of Grand Prix Cars" describes them as the "Gordini T15", but others are listed in entry lists as "Simca-Gordini T15". Certainly there were Gordinis and Simca-Gordinis together in the same race on many occasions... I'll try and figure out what's what and maybe we can devise a plan as to what to do with articles etc. Maybe all their GP cars could be covered in one article? Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
After researching it a bit, I think the Gordini article has it about right. The T15 was generally referred to as a Simca-Gordini because of its Simca-built 4-cylinder engine, with the 1952 T16 being referred to simply as a Gordini, with its Gordini-built 6-cylinder engine. There were races with both T15s and T16s taking part, hence Simca-Gordini and Gordini appearing together on the grid sometimes. There were basically only three models used in F1, the T15, T16 and the later T32. One or two people were knocking around in 1951-52 in Simca-Gordini T11s, which I think were uprated F2 cars.
I'm not sure if each car merits its own article, but I could figure out enough info to do that if people agreed to it. With regard to the model designation, most references seem to prefer "T15" over "Type 15", with the hyphenated "Simca-Gordini" name. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The Simca-Gordini issue is quite contentious, and I don't think there's any cast-iron way of getting it right. As far as I understand it, Gordini and Simca split some time in 1951 (following a very poor Le Mans 24H for simca), but the Simca-Gordini designed T15 raced until 1953, albeit in 1952 and 1953, it raced with a Gordini-designed 1.5L F2 engine. The T16 was designed for the 1952 F2 rules, and was designed/built solely by Gordini, so there shouldn't be any dispute as to its naming. As regards the T15, it used Simca-Gordini engines in 1950-1951, but the F2 engine which was used in 1952-1953 was built by Gordini. Although the car name should be Simca-Gordini T15, the constructor name should be "Simca-Gordini" for 1950-1951, and then "Simca-Gordini-Gordini" (car manufacturer followed by engine manufacturer, hyphenated) for 1952-1953, a practice which most publications abide by. (If you want a link to such data, ask on my talk page, I'm not being permitted to post links to websites) Manipe (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible restructure of Scuderia Ferrari article

Please add your thoughts at Talk:Scuderia_Ferrari#Possible_restructure. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Portal

I've just given all of my ideas about improving the F1 portal in one big stream-of-consciousness spew at the portal talk here. I'd like to get as wide a range of responses from F1 project members as possible about the ideas, so we can see how we present the face of our sport and project. Apterygial 05:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ferrari F60

I see that Ferrari F60 has been changed from a redirect to Enzo Ferrari (car) to an article about Ferrari's 2009 F1 car (with a hatnote pointing to Enzo Ferrari (car)). Is that OK? Or should Ferrari F60 be a disambiguation page, and the article about the F1 car be called "Ferrari F60 (Formula One)" or "Ferrari F60 (Formula One car)" or something like that? Currently, the majority of Google hits for "Ferrari F60" refer to the Enzo, not the F1 car (although I recognise that may change as the F1 season progresses). DH85868993 (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand it the F60 name is just informal with respect to the Enzo. It would therefore seem to make more sense (and make for much tidier titles) if the F60 page is left as it is. The hatnote ought to be sufficient. Pyrope 14:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Pyrope. I think a hatnote is the right call in this case. LeaveSleaves 14:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I added the hat note because, as Pyrope states, the F60 name was never official, but was merely what everyone presumed the car was going to be called. The359 (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Just thought I'd ask the question. DH85868993 (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

1999 Formula One season WDC positions

An editor has added WDC positions for drivers in the 1999 championship as per the FIA website. These positions have been determined retrospectively by the site, as it gives positions for drivers who scored no points, something not done at the time. In addition to that, we have the situation where Stephane Sarrazin, who did not finish a race during the season, is given 24th position in the WDC, which is clearly incorrect. Non-finishers do not get classified even now, e.g. Markus Winkelhock. So what do we do? Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, having looked through the site in question, it lists nothing prior to that season, which is a little odd. This is in the form of a press release at the time, which seems fair enough, and not retrospective as I thought at first. Maybe 1999 was the season when they started classifying drivers who did not score points? As far as I could ascertain from FORIX etc, it was 2000, but maybe it's 1999... In any case, Sarrazin being classified looks very much out of place, given that drivers who do not finish a race are, to my knowledge, still not classified in the WDC. Is this a case of the FIA contradicting itself? Surely not... Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Markus was classified as he started a race., as far as I'm aware. How can a driver who was leading a race not be counted? Chubbennaitor 16:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Because WC position is determined by points and then tie-breaked by highest number of 1st places/2nd places/3rd places.... As Winkelhock didn't finish a race, he doesn't have either points or a finishing position to determine a championship position. Historically, drivers had to score points in order to be classified. AlexJ (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
According to the rather irregular stats at www.fia.com, Winkelhock is not classified, but Sarrazin is. How both can be correct is a mystery to me. The only place I've seen Winkelhock classified in the WDC is at f1.com, whose stats are wrong in so so so many ways. After a random look at one season, they classify a driver who didn't even start a race above someone who finished one, so we can forget that site... I just wish the FIA could be consistent, but then I'm not alone in that, I suppose. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
It'd be nice if the FIA were consistent, but I'm not sure that they care a huge amount about history. Readro (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

List of motorsport terminology

Per this discussion at Wikiproject Motorsport I recently created the page List of motorsport terminology. Designed primarily to combat jargon, feel free to drop by and add common motorsport terms (this is going to be a big list). Apterygial 05:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

So this s a word for a word that's used only by motorsport. Chubbennaitor 09:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily. They could be words that, to the ordinary person, meant something different than the meaning in the motorsport world. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 21:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Mark Webber - still GA standard?

I recently added Webber's projected date of return to his article with a reference, and I noticed that there are several problems with the article which could well warrant a Good Article Review. Since the article achieved GA status in 2006, the subsequently added sections have not been kept up to the same standard: they are unbalanced, under-verified and full of POV phrases. The early career section, although in-depth and informative, also suffers from a lack of inline citations, and the article as a whole is on the long side: high-standard biography articles Alain Prost, Damon Hill, Mario Andretti and Lewis Hamilton are all shorter.

Unfortunately, I personally don't have enough time (uni!) to take on the workload a GAR would produce. Having said that, both Damon Hill and Mauricio Gugelmin have survived reviews thanks to the hard work of several editors, so I'm sure the article could be improved to the necessary standard. Before launching any action, however, I would like to seek the opinion of other WikiProject members (I've brought it up here as opposed to the Webber talk page as I think I will get a greater response here).--Diniz(talk) 23:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had my doubts about the article for a little while. My suggestion would be a peer review - problems could be worked through at a better pace than a GAR would be able to manage. Apterygial 23:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that the Mark_Webber#Formula_One_career section should be cut down quite a bit, by at least half, it really doesn't need to be that long IMO. D.M.N. (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd second that suggestion. For most years there's probably no need for more than a paragraph. Maybe two or three if it was a particularly interesting year. There's no reason why we can't do a pseudo GAR on the article talk page, which would be less adversarial than a real one. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. It's just a shame that I won't be able to contribute to the improvement of the article as much as I would like.--Diniz(talk) 20:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Too late it seems. D.M.N. (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A little bit of happiness

After an FAC I'd care never to repeat, 2008 Japanese Grand Prix recently was promoted to FA. This follows 2008 Italian Grand Prix, which recently achieved GA status. Thanks to everyone who helped with the copyediting and the PRs. Apterygial 00:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Great job! Readro (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Woo! Well done Apterygial, I could tell that you were getting a tad annoyed with some things... :D This insane idea isn't so insane after all! Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 22:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

2009 season results in driver articles

Someone has added a row for 2009 in Lewis Hamilton's results table - are we doing this yet? Seems a bit early. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that as well. Well, it's kind of pointless to add it so early with the first race 2 months away. But I guess to avoid unnecessary debate on the subject we could just hide it for the time being, as done in the season article. LeaveSleaves 20:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good compromise. We can do the same to any others if and when they appear. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I've boldly hidden it for now. I think this practice could be used for any other driver articles. LeaveSleaves 21:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd say, for future reference, we don't concern ourselves next time. Either leave it or hide it. Chubbennaitor 09:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-championship races

Just a little heads up to anyone whos seen. I'm going to start the pages for the 1950 non-championhip races for now, such as the Bari Grand Prix. This doesn't mean I won't eventually put the results and qualification times in eventually, but that takes a long time to do, and at the moment I don't have spare time, so I consider having even a short page like this as better than nothing. At least it gets rid of the red link on the 1950 Formula One season page.

Also, what I've noticed is that A LOT of information is missing on drivers, circuits, grands prix, etc in the 1950's. So in the long term, this is going to have to be seriously looked at. Just thought I'd mention it. Ste900R (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

In my view, anything big or small that helps improve the project, is a good thing. Of course, make sure when writing stuff that you source it and stuff. Good work on it so far! :) D.M.N. (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to add results tables to articles that don't currently have them - I find that I can do that fairly quickly. One point is that some information that we would generally include as a matter of course, such as grid positions, are not available for some races, e.g. 1950 Paris Grand Prix. Either the information is lost, very well hidden, or there was no organised grid as such. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Redundant image

Is there a particular reason why we need this picture and this picture?Mustang6172 (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Both pictures are different and under free use. Just because they are similar is not a valid reason to delete one of them. LeaveSleaves 05:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
What I was going to say. They are fairly different. Chubbennaitor 20:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi all

I joined the project yesterday, well I think it was still yesterday lol

Hope everyone is looking forwards to the new season and I'm glad to find you all here busy and active !

cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Project! I hope you enjoy your time here.--Diniz(talk) 11:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Welcome. You've done a first in my time. Chubbennaitor 16:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Archive_19&oldid=1238761616"