Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Lewis Hamilton

After a spate of vandalism, the article was semi-protected for two months today. Following a post at WP:AN, a warning template is now in place visible when editing the article and the article has been unprotected. Any vandalism will be dealt with harshly, especially that of a racist nature. Please report any vandalism to WP:AIV for action. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

National subcategories of Category:Formula One people

An editor recently started moving the articles in Category:Formula One people into national subcategories (e.g. Category:American Formula One people, Category:Australian Formula One people, etc) (and then helpfully abandoned the job halfway through - sigh). Do we think this is a positive move? Noting that:

Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Revert. Completely unneccessary, and actually a hindrance, because if someone is looking for an F1 person, they then have to know their nationality in order to find them, it's actually an obstacle to readability.
Revert. Revert now! --Falcadore (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I've proposed a reversion at CfD and notified the original editor. Please add any views you may have at the category discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The disease is spreading. --Falcadore (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protect 2009 Australian Grand Prix‎

What chance of semi-protection for 2009 Australian Grand Prix‎ in the face on continual racial slurr attacks by un-reg user? --Falcadore (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's one editor, but a number of IPs, and various article affected (such as 2009 Malaysian Grand Prix). I've raised the issue at WP:ANI. I'd suggest further instances should be reported to WP:AIV referencing this discussion. I'd urge any admin who sees such a report should block the IP without hesitancy, and escalating the blocks if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Following a request at WP:RAF, edit filter 311 has been created. This will flag up the insertion of "Black Baboon" in connection with Lewis Hamilton. The edit will be allowed, but flagged so that it can be quickly reverted and the editor blocked. Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Mjroots. Hopefully that will alleviate the problem. DH85868993 (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
This problem seems to have started up again, a number of related IPs to before have been vandalising 2008 Formula One season with the very same edits, changing Lewis Hamilton to "Black Baboon". I gave the last IP a warning, this may require more serious action. QueenCake (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
They're all the same guy, the previously-fairly-useful editor User:Gokul009. He's been indefinitely blocked but he keeps coming back with seemingly endless IPs. The only answer is to keep blocking them, rather than warning them, and hope that he gets a life at some point. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Formula One fastlappers

I notice the recent creation of List of Formula One fastlappers. Do we really need this article? Noting that (a) the top ten are already listed at Fastest lap and (b) you can generate the list (except for first/last fastest lap) by doing a sort on List of Formula One drivers. If consensus is to keep the new article, can we please change the name?: I have never seen the term "fastlapper" used anywhere else. DH85868993 (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I don't see the point. If it really must stay, I agree we should change the name. Wtf is a "fastlapper"? All racing drivers are "fastlappers" - this appears to be about "fastestlappers". For God's sake, we can at least put it into English. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes the 'fastalappers' terminology is both dreadful and inaccurate. --Falcadore (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
AfD immediately please. Like F1 doesn't have enough tables. And as you say it's a duplication of already existing data in Wikipedia. It can go into the same bin as the recentyl deleted List of NASCAR last place finishers. Runs afoul of WP:STATS and possibly WP:INDISCRIMINATE and maybe a few others. --Falcadore (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've AfDed it and notified the creator. Please add your thoughts to the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the result of the deletion discussion was "no consensus". DH85868993 (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Damn, I was too late for that one :( Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ayrton Senna versus Alain Prost

The article Ayrton Senna versus Alain Prost has recently been created. My first reaction was to nominate it for speedy deletion, but then I remembered that a book has been written which covers this sole subject, so it doesn't necessarily fail the notability guidelines as a subtopic of the Senna and Prost articles. Can this article be improved, or should it be deleted or merged?--Midgrid(talk) 19:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Currently it's an orphan stub - and already mostly wrong. If someone wants to write a proper article it might be notable. As it stands, I'd go for deletion. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the article would be improved beyond a basic statement - and then it would be a magnet for unreferenced info and opinions. The individual drivers articles would be a place for this, but there isn't anything there not already included. I would recommend deletion. QueenCake (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
There's a fair amount to be said on the topic, but it all belongs within the context of the drivers' careers and the season articles. Until the content overloads the driver or season articles (and I don't see why it should), I can't see any reason to have a standalone article. 4u1e (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Totally agree. The place for this is mostly in the season articles, I think. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Does it qualify for a speedy though? A10 (Duplication of an existing topic)? 4u1e (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Since it does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and it requires a hell of a lot of work before it does do that - I'd say yes, though I'm no expert on speedies. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion here.--Midgrid(talk) 14:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's been deleted (as you may have guessed from the redlink above). DH85868993 (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Simplifying "complete Formula One results"

Tables like this one look too loaded. How about removing the chassis and engine entries (they are fine for articles on teams) as well as team title sponsors, and just write "Williams-BMW" and "McLaren-Mercedes"? --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it is skinny enough as it is. If something should be done, it would be to add more info, not less, but I think it is good as it is now. John Anderson (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree, plus for drivers from the past, especially privateers, it would make the results tables unintelligible. These tables were developed painstakingly over a long period of time. I'm not crazy about the engine designation in the tables, but the rest of it is too important to remove. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The tables look fine to me personally, although I agree that the engines are probably not important in the driver articles. Remove that if its really to crowded, though I am fine with keeping it as is. QueenCake (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I endorse Bretonbanquet's comments. Something else to consider is that there are over 800 F1 driver articles, so a change to the results table format needs to be really worth the effort. DH85868993 (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The engines are there as a car's "constructor" is considered to be the combination of chassis and engine. I'm not sure we need the whole engine name there, just the manufacturer and configuration is probably enough, but we do need some indication. Pyrope 13:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I should clarify that it's the manufacturer's engine designation that seems like overkill to me, but I believe the manufacturer's name and the configuration are important. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Mercedes results tables

We currently have results tables for Mercedes cars and/or engines in three articles: Mercedes GP (cars), Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines (engines) and Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix results (both). I propose we keep the tables in Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix results and replace the tables in Mercedes GP and Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines with pointers to Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix results. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Equally, I'd like to ask why we currently have Formula One above the European Championship in Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix results. Chronologically, the European Championship comes first. Readro (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The natural assumption is that a World Championship carries greater prestige than a European Championship. An argument not without merit. --Falcadore (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Prestige is a point of view. Which we don't allow. Thus a chronological order is the only allowable order. Readro (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
It also makes more sense (to me) to have the two F1 tables together. I've updated the article accordingly. DH85868993 (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. --Falcadore (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Done. DH85868993 (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sports Notability

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Points Tables 5th Place

I recently edited the 2001 Australian Grand Prix article, particularly the Points tables, to add BAR-Honda to it, as they were technically ranked 5th, even though they had 0 points. This was deleted by Falcadore, who claims that this is confusing. So should the layout be like which one of these?

Constructors' Championship standings
Pos Constructor Points
1 Italy Ferrari 14
2 United Kingdom McLaren–Mercedes 6
3 Switzerland Sauber-Petronas 4
4 Republic of Ireland Jordan-Honda 2

As previously in the article.

Or:

Constructors' Championship standings
Pos Constructor Points
1 Italy Ferrari 14
2 United Kingdom McLaren–Mercedes 6
3 Switzerland Sauber-Petronas 4
4 Republic of Ireland Jordan-Honda 2
5

As previously in the 2000 Australian Grand Prix article, where Minardi-Fondmetal were 5th with 0 points.

Or...

Constructors' Championship standings
Pos Constructor Points
1 Italy Ferrari 14
2 United Kingdom McLaren–Mercedes 6
3 Switzerland Sauber-Petronas 4
4 Republic of Ireland Jordan-Honda 2
5 United Kingdom BAR-Honda 0

as i changed it to?

Thoughts please. WilliamF1two (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

On what basis are BAR-Honda (as opposed to the other teams with 0 points) fifth, ie why should they get special treatment? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
BAR had the seventh place, and being the first race of the season, had a higher result than the other teams also not scoring, so were placed fifth. Well we have the top 5 in most race articles, just because they have 0 points doesn't mean they were not in fifth place. I would keep them in. QueenCake (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Exactly my point QueenCake. Thank you. WilliamF1two (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
My 2p worth is as follows: Putting one team in 5th place with zero points will require an explanatory note to clarify why (in this case) it's BAR in 5th, and not one of the other non-scoring teams. Casual readers will not easily be able to discern the reasoning, as indeed Redrose wasn't. Given that it's a pretty meaningless 5th place anyway, I'd be happy to see it left out and the top 4 listed. The other point is that nobody ever seems to know which was the first season that saw non-scorers even classified in the WDC/WCC. It's somewhere around 1999-2000 but we don't know for sure as sources disagree. So we would not be able to be certain about adding any non-scorers to these tables for any of the seasons prior to 2001 anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Top chart please. Zero is zero points. If we have one team with no points in the chart the obvious question, which Redrose raised immediately above is why is that team on zero points can be ranked above all the other teams on zero points. While there is an explanation as Queencake provides, in a abbreviated chart of just five places that explanation is not apparent. The alternative is to include that explanation and have this long small text disclaimer like an insurance policy, or alternatively we can abbreviate it at four teams. It would then be quite obvious that no other teams scored points.
A second reason, why give recognition to a team which the points system has decided not to give any recognition? If the effort of a seventh or eighth or whichever place finish was worthy of recognition, it would be recognised, with points.
Thirdly, the original versions of these points standing included all point scorers, but never included drivers on zero points. It was decided later to limit the point standings to just five places.
To me its unneccessary additional detail. Who is really going to want to look up in any given season which team is senior amongst all these on zero points? Under what circumstances is that detail going to be significant to anyone? --Falcadore (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Well to be honest I didn't believe many users would get confused with it, but if that is the case then the core principal of having clear information takes precendence here. (I would personally keep it for consistency with all other race reports, but I guess the majority of readers would not think this way.) Falcadore, it's not really our job to give recognition to teams, just report on how things are/were but you raise some good points. Also Bretonbanquet has completely changed my opinion here. If we don't know when the non-scorers were included in the championship then we can't include them in a table showing championship positions - I thought it was just non-finishers actually. So I know it doesn't happen often here, but I change my mind and won't object to it's removal. QueenCake (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, my preference would be option 1, to minimise the chance of confusion, however small it may be. DH85868993 (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I hadn't realised that it hadn't always been people who had finished but not in the points were classified and not anyone who hadn't finished. We'll leave it as option 1, which is how it was before. Thanks Bretonbanquet for bringing that to my attention. WilliamF1two (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No probs :) I think that F1.com retrospectively allocates positions to non-scorers from the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s, but very few other sources do, and contemporary sources certainly don't. In the past, I think that's how some non-scoring drivers (and teams) became forgotten so quickly and ended up being so obscure - they were never listed in the record books. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd also go with option 1 - four places is not really any more arbitary a cut-off then five, and saves the hassle of having to write long explanatory notes. AlexJ (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Maserati in Formula One

I notice the recent creation of Maserati in Formula One. If we're happy to keep the new article, do we want to transfer the F1 templates and categories from Maserati to the new article, and change existing F1-related links to Maserati to point to the new article instead? (i.e. similar to the way in which the F1-related Alfa Romeo references link to Alfa Romeo in Formula One rather than Alfa Romeo). DH85868993 (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason not to. There's no mention of "Formula One" in the Maserati article. - mspete93 12:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Yep, should made short motorsport section to current Maserati article and add link to Maserati in Formula One --Typ932 T·C 20:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A thought: Would it better to rename the article as Maserati in Grand Prix racing and scope it to also include Maserati's pre-WWII and other non-F1 "Grand Prix racing" activities? (This thought occurred to me while I was thinking about updating the links and considering whether it would be appropriate to change the Maserati links in articles like 1957 Australian Grand Prix (a "Grand Prix race" but not a Formula One race) to point to Maserati in Formula One). DH85868993 (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to go down that road is it not better to take it the next logical step and simply make the page Maserati in motorsport? Pyrope 15:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy with that. DH85868993 (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. - mspete93 00:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I also second Pyrope's idea. John Anderson (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Me too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved. I've updated the lead to reflect the changed scope, but it probably needs more work. Some of the content of the parent Maserati article also probably needs to be transferred into Maserati in motorsport. DH85868993 (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Not held" rows revisited

An editor has reopened the discussion about "Not held" rows in the tables of winners in "<country> Grand Prix" articles. Please add any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Canadian_Grand_Prix#2009 Not Held row. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

1989 Formula One season

I was wondering how much sense is having photos of drivers in the article, not from that specific season? Prost looks very old and Patrese's is not from 1989 either at least judging by the Camel logo. (1991 or 1992 probably.)  Dr. Loosmark  18:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's like that for virtually every season article, problem is there's limited free use images available, especially from the older seasons. There's no real harm in it, though if any more in date images could be found they'll be changed. QueenCake (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
You may always add a text to the image saying something like "..., here in a picture from 1992" or so, if you think this is important. John Anderson (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

BMW Sauber to remain BMW Sauber

Link [1]. I'm surprised that BMW allows a team using engines of a competitor to retain BMW in its name. anyway what do we do now?  Dr. Loosmark  20:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Are BMW still primary sponsor, despite not being engine mftr? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It's got nothing to do with BMW "allowing" to retain the name. The process for changing a teams name is convuluted and difficulkt, and will not always be approved. --Falcadore (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey, on the plus side the FIA have put the nationality of each of the constructors on the entry list, for the first time that I can remember. That'll make some arguments a lot shorter.
Regarding BMW Sauber, I don't know. Historically, if there was a change of ownership but no change of name, we kept it all in one article, but that seems silly in this case! 4u1e (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I brought this up earlier on. The sticking point is whether we use the Sauber article or BMW Sauber article. We could incorporate the two into one article, but that goes against our usual procedure when teams change ownership. I don't believe removing BMW from the name could take too much effort. - mspete93 21:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Just because the entry list still uses the name BMW Sauber does not mean the name cannot still be changed before Bahrain. There's nothing in the document that says that the team has chosen not to change the name. The359 (Talk) 22:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Isn't Peter Sauber on record as saying they won't ask for a name change in 2010 "for reasons connected to the Concorde Agreement"? Tubefurnace (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but we need to have a plan in place so that we know which page we are updating and linking to. It doesn't seem right to use Sauber when the team is called BMW Sauber and that page is available. They don't make our lives easy do they? - mspete93 22:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that it is possible to merge BMW Sauber into Sauber as the team stayed essentially the same throughout, despite the change in ownership.--Midgrid(talk) 22:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I think now we have to merge. Readro (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I support merging. (We can always split them back apart later if necessary). DH85868993 (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
If Jordan, Minardi and Arrows have single coherent articles despite ownership variations then Sauber probably should merge. However if those three teams have split articles reflecting stuff like Footwork or Midland... --Falcadore (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Arrows is split (as is March-Leyton House); Minardi and Jordan are only split when their names changed. That's the thing - previously it's always worked out that if both the ownership and the name changed, we created a new article. That's always given us a common sense position, but doesn't really work this time. I suggest that we use the BMW Sauber article to record this year's info and wait and and see what happens with the team next year. This would be less work than merging now and (potentially) splitting out later, although I'm happy with merging if that's the consensus. I assume we'd merge to an article called 'Sauber' - the longest standing name? 4u1e (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd support a merge. If the team continues as Sauber for many more years, then it makes sense to have the whole story in one article. If the team folds at the end of 2010, same thing. If Sauber is purchased by someone else, and renamed for 2011 onwards, then it'd be best to have everything from 1993 to 2010 as one article. The only situation that I'd re-split them is if BMW buy back in, but that's not going to happen.Tubefurnace (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I am also in favour of a merge. The team's statistics will have to be merged, and at the F1 website the statistics and history of both teams is included, unlike with other teams where ownership has changed, e.g. Force India (Spyker) and Mercedes (Brawn). - mspete93 16:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
As I said above, I'm happy to go with a merge if that's the consensus, and it looks like it is. 4u1e (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I have now proposed the merger at Talk:Sauber#Merger proposal. - mspete93 10:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I think this year's results should be in the Sauber article, since the only reason for sticking with 'BMW' in the formal name this year seems to be a mere technicality. In every other aspect, the team is now a privatist team again, not even using BMW engines. – However, if there is not enough support for this, I think we can all at least agree that while the team could simply be called BMW last year, it should rather be called Sauber for short this year. John Anderson (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite pretty much getting a concensus for merging here, we do not quite have a consensus at the merger proposal discussion. It would be nice to have this done before the GP. - mspete93 20:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

To update, there is still not a consensus at Talk:Sauber. It has been proposed there that BMW Sauber is merged both into Sauber and a new article entitled BMW in Formula One, but it needs more support. Several people who have posted here have not contributed to the discussion on the Sauber talk page - please consider doing so if you have a free moment or two.--Midgrid(talk) 20:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

For anyone still following this discussion, we now have separate Sauber and BMW in Formula One articles which have collectively replaced the BMW Sauber article.--Midgrid(talk) 15:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Lap record definition

I ask for a confirmation, because of an ongoing edit war - it is practice that lap records are only produced by race laps? And that qualifying lap records are referred to separately. The problem arises from a North American focussed edittor. It is the practice in North America that lap records can come from essentially any form of lap, but that in Europe, and in most non-North American areas, that lap records come only from racing laps. --Falcadore (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It has always been my understanding that the lap record had to be set during a race, however, when I asked for confirmation of my understanding, it seemed there was a variety of opinion on the matter. Something I suggested in that discussion was that we could change the text in the infobox to read "Race lap record" instead of just "Lap record", to remove the ambiguity (and optionally add a new parameter for "Outright lap record" or "Qualifying lap record", if that was deemed desirable/necessary). DH85868993 (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, only laps driven in a race count towards the lap record. Readro (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
For a race, a lap record is a lap which is deemed as a fastest lap for that race. For the cirquit itself, a lap record could of course be set anytime, not just at GP weekends. The former should be added to articles about the Grand Prix in question, the later to articles about the cirquit, both with clear defining explanations. John Anderson (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
There are no clear defining traditions. The European tradition is for race laps only to count, the North American tradition that qualifying and indeed some practice laps count, although there are periodic exceptions. --Falcadore (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:1976 Grand Prix

I notice the recent creation of Category:1976 Grand Prix for national Grands Prix held in 1976. Please contribute any views you may have on the matter at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport#Category:1976_Grand_Prix. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Lotus in F1 timeline

The F1 timeline (Template:F1_constructors_timeline) has recently been edited to add Team Lotus, shown on the same line as Lotus Racing. Now, the longest conversation we've had on this previously (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Archive_23#Lotus_F1_Team) leant towards the decision that Team Lotus and Lotus Racing are two separate entities. The fact that we have two separate articles also supports this as the de facto consensus.

Could we get a project consensus on whether Team Lotus should appear on the constructors timeline? I suggest not, since as argued before there is only a very tangential link between old and new Lotus, not to mention a gap of 16 years. All the other changed names on the timeline are changes of 'franchise' (ugh!). The editor who made the change has been notified. 4u1e (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, two separate teams, connection is name only. --Falcadore (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Two different teams. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I oppose it. Even though the teams aren't linked together we must understand that Team Lotus and Lotus Racing are still connected. The entry name is a discussion point but it makes it a whole lot simpler for other people to understand about it. Rather than going into the technicalities it is actually simpler to display. Since Team Lotus was a founded team and not purchased team the part of the timeline makes sense. Also Team Lotus went bust. The new lotus racing was a founded team as well no purchase. That way people can understand about lotus. (Wiki id2(talk) 19:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC))
I'm certainly confused. You're saying the reason to show is because they are separate teams, and that displaying it as you have done highlights they are separate teams? If that was your intent, you;ve failed becuase it indicates the opposite. --Falcadore (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, your statement "Since Team Lotus was a founded team and not purchased team" shows that you are fully aware that these are two distinct entities, and therefore unrelated except by coincidence of name. Is Phil Hill the same person as Graham Hill? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
You mean he's not?! While certainly simple, the current timeline with both Lotuses on the same line, in the same colours and using the same name, unambiguously states that they are the same team. This is factually incorrect. If we want a simple solution without going into the technicalities, surely we go back to where we were before and just leave out the defunct Team Lotus? 4u1e (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Am I the only one who questions why we even need such a template? If someone wants team history, shouldn't they just be looking at the specific team? Why do we need a template of all the current teams and their past incarnations? The359 (Talk) 20:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I;m not a fan of it myself and would not cry at its removal. --Falcadore (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I can see some use in the timeline. Although I really, really hate the way that F1 has evolved into a franchise system since around the turn of the century, we are where we are and it does allow those interested to see the history of the current franchises (...spit...) at a glance. Since Team Lotus is a different franchise however, it doesn't belong in the current timeline. 4u1e (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed - the template is designed to show the evolution of the current teams under their different ownership and names. Thus, Team Lotus should not be included. I do not see the old incarnations of Renault and Mercedes in the template. For those still struggling to understand, Lotus Racing is not the official factory team of Lotus Cars, like the Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault teams are for those respective car manufacturers. It just has the right to use the name and some financial backing from Lotus Cars' parent Proton. It also happens to have a factory in Norfolk close to Lotus Cars, for now, until it moves to Malaysia. - mspete93 21:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
MP93's post is spot on. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
One in favour, six against with logical reasoned argument and precedent. Don't see any need to take this further. --Falcadore (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just created a new template called Template:F1 constructors spiritual timeline where I have added this instead, followed by a footnote saying not all agree with FIA that the new Lotus team is the same as the old Lotus team. Feel free to add your thought on this. John Anderson (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

And the point of creating a second template is what, exactly? Are you planning to add both templates to all current F1 team articles and their "spiritual predecessors"? Now we have two silly, random templates. The359 (Talk) 06:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I think my template makes much more sense than the other one, which I agree is a bit silly. My template shows how some manufactors have left and then reentered Formula One, while the other template just notes the take-over of existing garages. John Anderson (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Both templates show different things, but having both in one article is definitely overkill. What's the most useful thing to show? The original version shows how long the current organisations have been around and what their immediate predecessors were (franchises, effectively). The updated one shows some, but not all (no Frank Williams Racing Cars?), of the earlier organisations that carried the same or similar names to the current teams. I don't think either is necessary in the general F1 article and both are likely to be confusing to a novice reader; equally, both may have uses in other articles with more specific remits. 4u1e (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I was not sure what to do with Frank Williams Race Cars, since that organisation was renamed Wolf and Frank Williams shortly after left and started a new business, the present Williams. It is not that there was the same organisation which was the mother company to both of them, if you don't want to treat Frank Williams as a person as such. John Anderson (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
And yet that's very similar to Renualt in which you ignore the team's previous owenership history in which for a couple of season Renault competed on track against the team that in future became Renault. --Falcadore (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that demonstrates why it's perhaps misleading to try and summarise these things in a template. 4u1e (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't have to ignore that, since it is beside the point; I don't know what significance it would have at all for the type of matrix presented in the template I created. It wasn't Renault at the time. Renault is Renault, Toleman was not Renault. Anyway, it's nothing compared to Red Bull and Toro Rosso competing against eachother at present. John Anderson (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I think my template makes much more sense than the other one, doesn't it also completely fly in the face of consensus? What was the point of the discussion if it is to be ignored? --Falcadore (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I really think we could drop both these templates (since it is better to deal with these things in written text, where it can be better explained) but if the first template should be kept, as seems to be the consensus, I can't see why I couldn't create another template along lines which are similar but not the same. John Anderson (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Along lines the consensus rejected, being the point, taking a rejected point and then building a whole template out of it is somewhere between spiteful and confusing. --Falcadore (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if it might seem spiteful, it wasn't meant to be, but I acctually got the idea for my template the first time I saw the other template, which was definitely weeks before the above discussion. I just didn't have time to create it back then. John Anderson (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Easy, Falcadore. Yes, we work to consensus; but we're not meant to be locked into a state where no-one can create anything new without agreement from the Supreme Soviet. John left a note here to say that he'd created a new version of the template and asking for comment; calling his actions spiteful is, in my opinion, out of order. Remember WP:AGF? I would agree that we now have a confusing situation over at Formula One, where there are two timelines and I think readers will be unclear as to what they both mean. 4u1e (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say it was spiteful, please look at the wording I used. I don't know JohnAnderson remotely well enough to make to pin down anywhere in a wild range of possibilities. And I am not meaning to imply that level of control either. It seemed to me the specific objection against the Lotus modification was now being blown u into it's own template. Taking a small item of confusion and magnifying it. I also disagree by way of example that it doemonstrates how manufactuerers have ducked in and out of the series because only Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault are represented in that manner, and Lotus in a way that is not representative of when and how far the Lotus racing and manufacturer concerns were separated, and yet also includes commerical funded operations like Red Bull who have no history of vehicle manufacture and does not include stalwarts like Honda who are not presently part of the series and likewise if it is meant to represent manufacturer involvement it does not include periods when both Renault and Mercedes were represented as engine manufacturers. --Falcadore (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
All I can say is that I did carefully look at the words you used before I commented, and I've looked again now, and what the words say to me is that you believed his edits may have been spiteful. The difference between 'were spiteful' and 'may have been spiteful' doesn't make any difference to how I feel about it. However, we seem to be reading the words differently - you obviously didn't intend the message I have received, so shall we leave it there?
On the subject of the templates, I think we probably agree. If we do want a template, it would be useful to define what information it is intended to convey: current teams, history of manufacturers, predecessors of current teams; history of all teams? However, see DH's comment below! 4u1e (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Without wishing to offend anyone, I suggest that both templates are just deleted. IMO, the amount of time and effort they have consumed and angst they have caused far outweigh the benefit they provide. DH85868993 (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem with that. 4u1e (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm OK with that. John Anderson (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated them for deletion. Please add any comments at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_6#Template:F1_constructors_timeline. DH85868993 (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Indy 500 drivers in the 1950s

An IP has removed Category:American Formula One drivers from all the drivers involved in the Indy 500 during the 1950s, when it was part of the F1 season. Did I miss this discussion or is this yet another slightly tedious move by this particular IP? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say option (b), because of the word "not" in this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I have to say I don't fully understand that particular criteria. Is it saying they're included or not? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah I see, I've just realised he put the "not" in himself. I've reported him for vandalism. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Before just reverting his/her edits (any volunteers, btw?) is it worth considering a special category for these drivers, e.g. Category:American Formula One drivers (Indianapolis only) similar to Category:Formula One constructors (Indianapolis only)? [I've checked in the past and the drivers whose only WDC participation was at Indy are all American.] If there is support for the idea, now would probably be an opportune time to implement it. DH85868993 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The race was part of the World Drivers Championship season. There was no "F1 season" until 1981. There is nothing remotely F1 about the Indy 500. Readro (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know. But we include those drivers in List of Formula One drivers, so it seems sensible (to me) to include them in a subcategory of Category:Formula One drivers, for consistency. DH85868993 (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The list should be changed as well. This is another silly anomaly created by not recognising that the WDC and F1 are separate entities. Let's separate the two and finally remove these daft resultants, such as 1952 Formula One season for example. List of Formula One drivers doesn't include the non-championship races either. Formula One and the world championship are not the same thing. Readro (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it might be a good opportunity to fix a few things. List of Formula One drivers needs to include non-championship drivers, whether they're in a separate section or not. I think the Indy drivers should be in the category or a subcategory at least, as DH says, for consistency. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, if we're going to include them then the list needs renaming. Readro (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It does, along with one or two lists, like List of Formula One drivers who never qualified for a race. Any suggestions for any renaming? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Apologies in advance - this is going to be a bit long. But it's a complex issue. It think we have several options for List of Formula One drivers:

  1. Include all WDC drivers
  2. Include all WDC drivers except those who only competed at Indy
  3. Include all WDC drivers except those who only competed at Indy or in 1952-53 (the "Formula 2" years) or in the F2 class of a combined F1+F2 race (e.g. Xavier Perrot)

In addition, we may also choose to include drivers who only participated in non-championship F1 races (either in a separate table or mixed in with the WDC drivers). Which of these options we adopt will affect what the article should be called.
Questions/Issues:

  1. If we remove the Indy and/or F2 drivers from List of Formula One drivers, is it sensible/justifiable to still include them in List of Formula One driver records? Perhaps it is - perhaps it's OK to have "List of Formula One drivers" (excluding Indy and F2) and "List of WDC driver records" (including Indy and F2). Or maybe we should remove the Indy and F2 drivers and results from List of Formula One driver records. Would that be original research? Would it compromise the article's referenceability? (e.g. FORIX and www.formula1.com include all/only WDC results, but ChicaneF1 gives the option to omit "Indy only" drivers)
  2. If we remove the "F2 only" drivers from List of Formula One drivers, should we also remove the 1952-53 stats from the table? (Would that be OR?) Or maybe it's OK to keep the 1952-53 stats in the table, and just make it clear that these are "WDC race" stats for the driver, not "Formula One race" stats. Noting that we list WDC stats in the infoboxes in the driver articles.
  3. If we add non-WDC drivers to List of Formula One drivers, what stats would we list for them? Or would the "Non-WDC drivers" section just be a list of (linked) names?
  4. Or do we forget about WDC stats altogether and list each driver's stats for "all Formula One races"? Do we have a definitive list of "all Formula One races"? ChicaneF1 seems to have one. How reliable is it? Is it copyrighted? (ChicaneF1 has a copyright notice at the bottom of each page)
  5. Should we include drivers driving F1 cars in Formula Libre races?
  6. Do we want to the contents of the Category:Formula One drivers tree to match the list in List of Formula One drivers?
  7. If we remove "F2 only" drivers from List of Formula One drivers, for consistency should we also remove "F2 only" constructors from the "Formula One constructors" list, template and category?

None of these questions are unanswerable. We just need to decide what makes sense. DH85868993 (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Every page that refers to before 1981 needs to refer to the World Drivers' Championship rather than Formula One. The Indy 500 and the F2 seasons are part of the championship and should be included, but the championship we are referring to needs to be clarified. All the 1950-1980 season pages should be renamed to 19XX World Drivers' Championship season. Either we embrace the WDC and the F1WC as the same, or we refer to them as two separate championships, but the latter would lead to us having F1 start in 1981. Although it is common to group the two together, officially the WDC was ended in 1980 and the F1WC was a new championship that started in 1981. I suggest grouping, but splitting is an option. Readro (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I am against any sort of mass rename of all Formula One references to World Drivers Championship, that would be a massive undertaking for no gain based on a tiny detail. Pre-1980 seasons were still a season of Formula One races, even if the actual championship was differently named. Virtually all readers will be looking for the 19xx Formula One season, WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence here.
On the subject, well I'm unsure over Indy, technically it was part of Formula One, but it was a completely different race and regulations. I would err on the side or keeping it in. As for Formula Two, well this seems clear for me. Why should Formula Two drivers be included in an article titled List of Formula One drivers? QueenCake (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Indy was not, and never has been, part of Formula One. The point is that prior to 1981, races which counted towards what was then the WDC did not have to be run to F1 regs; it was up to the individual race organisers; and the 1950-1960 Indianapolis 500 counted toward the WDC and were run to Indy regs, not F1, because that's what the Brickyard wanted, and who can deny them the right to run the Indianapolis 500 to Indy regs? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This is some complicated stuff. I'll try to make my points my answering DH's questions.
Re: List of Formula One drivers - if this list is to retain this name, it must include non-championship Formula One drivers, perhaps in a different section, or in table form with a separate column for N-C races. Otherwise it's a nonsense. Whether it includes Indy drivers is a difficult question. Technically the Indy drivers were not F1 drivers, but they were World Championship drivers, and that reason for leaving them out will be lost on a lot of people. My feeling is that they should be included in a separate section within the list. Even more difficult is the 1952-53 seasons, which were not F1 seasons. I think the best bet is to include stats from these two seasons as if they were F1 seasons but with a qualifying note to explain that F1 was effectively replaced by F2 for these two seasons. That, I think, is what most sources do. The F2 drivers who took part in F1 races in the late 60s, albeit driving F2 cars, should be included in a similar way. They did race in Formula One races, but there should be an explanatory note next to people like Xavier Perrot. He did drive an F1 car in one or two non-championship races anyway, so he'll be included one way or the other.
Re: the other points raised:
  1. Keep Indy, 1952-53 and Perrot-type drivers in the list, with notes to explain.
  2. I'd be dead against removing 1952-53 results from lists, due to completeness, complexity and the potential for unknowing editors just to add them right back again.
  3. Non-championship drivers can have stats too, just listing the number of non-championship F1 races they took part in. It can be sourced.
  4. WDC stats and N-C stats should be kept separate. A list of N-C races can be drawn up, although I don't think ChicaneF1's list is all that great. I think there are Formula Libre races in that list, such as all the New Zealand GPs, many of the Australian GPs, plus the 1965 Cape South Easter Trophy (a SA F1 race) etc. It's not something they can copyright anyway, they must be out of their minds.
  5. No. If we go down the road of including stats from all races in which F1 cars were driven, it'll go on forever. We should stick to races that were restricted to F1 rules, plus those that included F2 cars.
  6. Yes.
  7. Let's not remove them at all.
Other issues include the GB and SA F1 series - these were also F1 races, do we include those drivers in he List of Formula One drivers? Technically, we should, but it'll be a long list. One way to remove the problems would be to rename it List of Formula One World Championship drivers, to include only those drivers who took part in WC races. This does not remove the technicality that, until 1981, it wasn't called the Formula One World Championship. I'm in two minds regarding the switch from 19XX Formula One season to 19XXWorld Drivers Championship. My gut feeling is that we should make that switch, partly because of accuracy, and partly because 1952 Formula One season is an utter nonsense. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, two points:
1) WDC vs. F1: WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence. I know it is complex issue, but even FOM and the FIA are celebrating the 60th F1 season this year, and that is certainly how the general public see it. I understand the points relating to the "F2" years of the WDC, but to push this point too hard is pedantry above and beyond the scope of Wikipedia. As far as the Indy drivers go, if we are following the colloquial usage of the term F1, then their recorsds ought to be included but with adequate explanatory footnotes, as we have already.
2) Records for non-C F1 races are somewhat patchy and occasionally contradictory, and as far as I know nobody has tabulated individual driver statistics. Going through many sets of results and collating their data is new work, unless someone can show me where the stats exist already. Including non-C data for drivers is therefore verging (no, actually it is) contradicting WP:OR.
Quick and dirty thoughts. Pyrope 18:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
For WDC vs. F1, I quote the following from WP:COMMONNAME - "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common. For example, Tsunami is preferred over the arguably more common, but less accurate Tidal wave." Readro (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
And there's the problem. While we may find sources that keep the Indy 500 races removed from the WC's statistics, is there a reliable source that treats the 1952 and 1953 seasons as not-F1? Or that specifically says the 1981 season was the first F1WC? Should that be an issue, considering that the F1WC is a direct continuation of the WDC? It might be easier to simply keep the page title and reword the introductory sentences. Something like:
eg1) The 1952 World Drivers Championship is considered the third Formula One season, although all races in the World Championship were held to Formula Two technical regulations, and no actual F1 race scored points for the Championship.
eg2) The 1981 Formula One World Championship was the 32nd Formula One season, although it was actually the first to formally incorporate F1 in its title.
All pages from 1950 to 1980 would have "19xx World Drivers Championship was the xxth Formula One season" to be easily understood by the majority of readers, with that explanation I propose for the 1952-53 seasons, and from 1981 all pages would include "19xx Formula One Championship was the xxth Formula One season". As for non-championship races, I believe we should consider removing the non-champ F2 races from the non-champ tables. But we really need season pages for F2 between 1947 and 1960, and also for the 1964-1966 period, as it was very common for F1 drivers and teams to compete in F2 races as well. The present European F2 season pages (1967-1984) don't include non-championship races either, and I believe they should. --Pc13 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Formula One season really is not inaccurate, the whole thing has always been referred to as "Formula One" seasons. If we decided to go down the WDC route, wouldn't each season then have to be renamed to 19XX World Drivers Championship and International Cup for Manufacturers? Considering almost every season has contained both a drivers and constructors championship, naming the article after only the Drivers championship is clearly inaccurate. QueenCake (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

'the whole thing has always been referred to as "Formula One" seasons' - what rubbish. I have two books which usually refer to "World Championship race" (also "World Drivers Championship" and "World Constructors Championship"), often to "Grand Prix", rarely to "Formula One" (or similar), except in certain specific instances.
  • Griffiths, Trevor R. (1997) [1992]. Grand Prix: The Complete Guide (3rd ed.). Enderby: Blitz Editions. ISBN 1 85605 391 1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Small, Steve (1994). The Guinness Complete Grand Prix Who's Who. Enfield: Guinness Publishing. ISBN 0 85112 702 9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
"1950: The inaugural World Championship, to a formula which specified engine capacity of 1.5 litres supercharged or 4.5 litres unsupercharged ... the Indianapolis 500, which ran to different regulations, was included in the championship series until 1960" (Griffiths 1997, p. 1)
"1952: Alfa Romeo ... withdrew from racing, leaving Ferrari as the only serious Formula 1 contender. This led organizers to run their races for Formula 2" (Griffiths 1997, p. 13).
If you choose to exclude Formula 2 then you also deny Alberto Ascari the right to be recorded as having two World Championships. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that the indenting has been reset, I'll quote Pc13 again - "While we may find sources that keep the Indy 500 races removed from the WC's statistics, is there a reliable source that treats the 1952 and 1953 seasons as not-F1? Or that specifically says the 1981 season was the first F1WC? Should that be an issue, considering that the F1WC is a direct continuation of the WDC?"

The answer is yes. The 1981 FIA Yellow Book states...

"GENERAL REGULATIONS
1 -- In application of the decisions taken during the FIA Rio Congress of 15th April 1980, the FISA is organising the new FIA Formula 1 World Championship from 1st January 1981. As a result, the old World Championship for Drivers is suppressed.

2 -- The new Formula 1 World Championship, which is the property of the FIA, will have 2 World Championship titles, one for Drivers and one for Constructors."

Readro (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course the FIA regulations get things technically correct, they are what defines "correct". However we are talking about the commonly understood concept of "Formula One" amongst the general public. This most certainly existed in its current form before 1980 (and indeed before 1950), and the FIA in this case were actually following popular usage and not leading it. If you go back to old editions of magazines they commonly talk about Formula One news and make no distinction in category between Championship and non-Championship races. They do not have separate "Formula One" and "World Drivers' Championship" sections, they were integrated even as far back as the 1950s. Pyrope 17:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
In Motor Sport they separated things into "Grand Epreuves", "International Formula I Races", "International Formula II Races", etc. When referring to the championship explicitly it was "The World Championship" that was mentioned. Formula One was only regarded as a set of technical regulations that defined the cars. The commonly understood concept of Formula One is a myth. This does not mean that we should propagate that myth. The commonly understood concept of the Koala is that it is a bear. We have to use facts here and the facts are that it was the World Drivers' Championship up to and including 1980. Having 1952 Formula One season and 1953 Formula One season is ridiculous and it should be changed. Readro (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
What's your suggestion? Should we rename them 1952 World Championship season etc. you think? John Anderson (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Grand Prix season would probably be better suited. Non-WC races are also covered in the articles. AlexJ (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
You can have non-WC races during a WC season. I think World Drivers' Championship season would be fine. Readro (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
In theory, I could support changing 1952 and 1953 seasons to a different name, that can be a little misleading as they were run to F2 rules and all. However this is still completely against the accepted view of "Formula One", so in practise this would likely just cause problems with everyone, if two seasons were just taken out of order. QueenCake (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be fairly odd if we just changed those two. Either change them all or none of them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The accepted view of Formula One is a myth. We should not futher propagate this myth. All seasons up to and including 1980 should be changed. Readro (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Then we should keep the seasons as is. There is hardly a "myth" about Formula One, virtually everything and everyone I have seen, from the FIA to common chatter, refers to pre-1980 as a season of Formula One. A season of races held to Formula One regulations, known as a Formula one Season - I just do not see a problem with that. QueenCake (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Whilst the championship was known simply as the World Drivers' Championship, allowed Formula Two cars to enter some races and included a race that was run to AAA or USAC National Championship regulations, it can hardly be thought of as a Formula One season. Formula One just happened to be a formula that was used for most of the time. Formula One and the world championship only became synonymous in 1981, when the FIA's new Formula One World Championship started and the previous World Drivers' Championship was terminated. Readro (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
My preference is to leave them all as "yyyy Formula One season" (for simplicity and minimisation of effort). If the pre-1981 season articles must be renamed, I would favour "yyyy Grand Prix season" - I don't favour "yyyy World Drivers' Championship" as it ignores the WCC and if the name/scope of the articles is restricted to the WDC, then we'd have to remove the details of the non-WDC races which are currently included. DH85868993 (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Grand Prix season is OK. Leaving them as they are would only result in keeping the same ridiculous inconsistencies. Readro (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
As an afterthought... some Formula One races were held in 1952/3, and some of those are included in the non-WC list. What of them?
This also brings up the 2.5 litre races held after F1's shift to 1.5 in 1961. The Intercontinental Formula I think it was called? Later used as the basis for Tasman. Are any of those races included in the NC lists post 1960? --Falcadore (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd be ok with 19XX Grand Prix season - seems to be a good compromise.
I think the odd few F1 races held in 1952-53 should also be included in any lists, with the appropriate explanatory notes. The Intercontinental Formula races have not been included in the NC lists post 1960 (not by me anyway) except where they included a Formula One class, like the 1961 Lombank Trophy. Exclusively IC Formula races are outside our scope, I would guess. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Given the short time the Intercontinental Formula existed (one year), and that it was made mostly with obsolete F1 material, I would include it as part of the 1961 Grand Prix season. As for 1952/53, should we remove the F2 races and create season pages for Formula Two from 1947 to 1960 and from 1964 to 1966? --Pc13 (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
This is why 19xx World Drivers' Championship season would be better. You can include non-championship races if they occur during a season. The constructors championship was a subsidiary championship of the WDC, so it can be included in the article as well. Readro (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with exactly with DH above, keeping everything as a "xxxx Formula One season" prevents all these issues from occurring, pages titles can be left as is with no actual problem. If this is an absolute must, (which I doubt it is to be honest, this is a minor issue) 19XX Grand Prix season would be the only compromise. World Drivers Championship, now that just tells a reader that they are reading an article about a Drivers championship, it mentions nothing about the equally important constructors, or the various other Non championship races. Think of this from a readers point of view, why should an article be named after only one part of the content? This is why Formula One has always worked, "19XX Formula One season" is the clearest, simplest, and reasonable accurate title out there. QueenCake (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
World Drivers' Championship was the actual title of the world championship. Plus, if you name the article "19xx World Drivers' Championship season" then it allows for non-championship races. The constructors title was only a subsidiary title anyway and was bolted on in 1958. It only received equal billing from 1981 when the championship became Formula One. Readro (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. The WDC season lasts from the first race of the championship to the last, explicitly excluding all races held outside the season and implicitly excluding all those that weren't a part of the WDC. Of the ideas mooted above, renaming to "XXXX WDC season" is the worst. The way that motor racing worked until the 1980s means that all options are going to be compromised to a certain extent, but that one is simply too restrictive. We want a naming format that implies the World Championship, while still retaining enough flexibility to be able to illustrate the prevalence of non-championship racing in the 1950s and '60s. In my opinion the current method works best for that (with the caveat that footnoted explanation of the anomalies are essential) and maintains the currently synonymous nature of F1 and the WDC (exhibit (a): the May 2010 cover of Motor Sport loudly proclaims "60 Years of the Formula One World Championship"). Yes, I know it isn't technically correct; yes, I understand that makes your teeth ache; but, I think it remains the best, most easily understood, most inclusive convention. Renaming to "XXXX Grand Prix season" has its attractions in that 1952/3 F2 Grands Prix and the InterContinental Formula races could be easily encompassed (Indy remains outwith this, however), but I don't think it is enough of an improvement to offset the sheer work involved in relinking hundreds of pages, never mind the howls of protest that we would get from non-single-seater-automobile-racing people who also use the term "Grand Prix" in their event schedules. Pyrope 17:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Going back to the editor who originally prompted this discussion - he is confused because we include the 1950s Indy 500 races in stats and lists, so he doesn't see why we shouldn't include all and sundry Formula Libre races. To be fair, his English is poor and he doesn't seem to understand my explanations, then he threatened to kill me and now he's indef blocked, so maybe he's not a typical case. But I can see why there might be some confusion over what is included and what isn't. We need to state clearly that the Indy 500 was an exception in several ways and that it was not an F1 race, without removing it from all the stats and categories. The naming convention for the season articles needs to reflect that, while including the N-C F1 events. I don't really mind what they're called, but we do need to set out clearly what is and isn't within our scope. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Retrospective revisionism has created a very simplified view of Formula One history, by trying to depict everything as Formula One racing is currently setup. Stats websites are probably the biggest cause of this, as they try to make different sets of data comparable, making vast simplifications to achieve this, but what we'd consider modern reliable sources can be equally as guilty. Policy states that verifiability is more important than truth, but assuming we can find period sources to back up other forms of naming, and I do see where Readro is coming from, when you look at how we're describing a championship run to F2 rules as an F1 season. Nevertheless, Formula One as a common name does stretch back much further than the 1980s, but was not used exclusively. In the 1966 edition of Autocourse for example, the section of race reports is titled The Grand Epreuves, the first race report starts with "The 1965 Grand Prix season opened at", Jim Clark in his foreword states that "the Formula 1 review is most interesting" and in the introduction Jim Clark is referred to as having won "The World Championship, the Tasman Championship, Indianapolis and the French and British Formula 2 Championships". Four terms referring to similar, overlapping but slightly different things. AlexJ (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I can certainly see the confusing terms we have had, and what Readro's point is. But that is why I have been supporting keeping it as "Formula One", out of all the terms out there, it is the most encompassing, easily understood and to be fair requires no tedious unnecessary work. It may be slightly incorrect, but no other naming method is better. QueenCake (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Formula One is easily understood, but it is only encompassing because it is being used very wrongly. Using its correct meaning, it excludes the Formula Two seasons, the odd races with Formula Two entrants and the Indy 500. It might be that we can get a bot to do the work necessary if any naming convention was decided upon. Or a semi-automatic tool like AWB. Given that we use 19xx Grand Prix season for the pre-WDC seasons, I think it would be OK. If we are talking idealistically, ignoring the workload, it seems that Grand Prix season would be the best idea. It might be worth asking for help outside the project to see if we can get a bot to do the work. Readro (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The workload may not be all that great. Following the initial page moves, existing links will still work via the redirects. We can then convert the links at our leisure. My gut feel is that 5 hours with AWB would probably do it - maybe 10. I also suspect that about half(?) the links to the season summary articles come via the {{F1}} template. So updating that one template would probably fix about half the links. (I think that shouldn't be too hard, I think all we would need to do is change the code to say "if year<1981 link to [year Grand Prix season] else link to [year Formula One season]"). DH85868993 (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Before we make a final decision, some other points we should consider:
Note that I'm not suggesting we need to answer these questions immediately; I just thought it made sense to raise them before we make any changes. DH85868993 (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Archive_27&oldid=1238761845"