Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Duplicate categories

Anyone else notice the creation of this? Category:Swedish Formula One World Championship drivers. Nominate for CFD immediately. --Falcadore (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid this goes a lot deeper than that. There is a user currently under suspicion of sockpuppetry, who seems to have made it their business to completely reorder the drivers by nationality categories. There is a lot of damage that needs to be undone, including many alterations on category and main space pages, but I'm not about to start doing anything until the investigation is complete. Pyrope 13:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions

Hello, I know I am a NASCAR fan, but I noticed that this list should have a reassessment because the list seems to have outgrown the Featured List Criteria. I have asked an editor about it and he also said the same thing. If someone replies please leave me a talkback message on my talk page. Thanks. --Nascar1996 ^{Contribs / Tasks} 01:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What specifically is the problem? --Falcadore (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Outgrown? In that case, you'll probably think the same of List of Formula One Grand Prix winners, List of Formula One World Constructors' Champions and List of Formula One drivers also? Orphan Wiki 12:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not the List of Formula One Grand Prix winners, but the Drivers' champions list needs more references and more text. Once it has those it will be a featured list. The others are good unless they don't have the references and more text. --Nascar1996 ^{Contribs / Tasks} 23:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Nascar1996 and I discussed this article when he used as an example featured list for a similar NASCAR list. I commented that this list isn't up to current featured list standards in terms of using reliable sources or for providing inline citations. I comment that if you want this article to remain featured then it needs to be worked on. Not a threat or a promise, just a suggestion. There's no way that this article would survive intact against a reassessment. It looks like 2005 standards (in my opinion). Royalbroil 01:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Pirelli exclusive tyre supplier?

HAs it beenconfirmed that Pirelli are going to be the sole and exclusive tyre supplier. [1] BBC article seems to suggest there may be more than one potential supplier. Lucy-marie (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Straight from the FIA: "Pirelli has been selected as the single tyre supplier for the FIA Formula One World Championship for a period of three years, commencing in 2011. The sole supplier will undertake to strictly respect the sporting and technical regulations implemented by the FIA." Source The³5₉ (Talk) 22:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

US GP articles - 1961 & 1964

An editor has added some editorialising and links to a message board at 1961 United States Grand Prix and 1964 United States Grand Prix. Since it raises questions that I feel are relevant to the articles, I haven't deleted it - maybe someone would like to tackle it and clear it up? The editor in question and I have differences of opinion on a couple of things, so my deleting his edits may appear inflammatory to him. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Causes of retirements

A discussion is going on here which raises the question of what reason to give for a driver's retirement from a race, when that reason is either not clear, or is a combination of things. It would be good to get some kind of consensus on it so we can be consistent in the future, and apply the same criteria across all the F1 race articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of raising this with WP:MOTOR a few weeks ago due to wondering how to classify incidents in FIA GT1. If two cars collide and that collision causes a car to spin off the track and retire while the other simply continues on without even slowing, is it collision, accident, spun off, etc? The³5₉ (Talk) 22:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's a two car incident then collision, because with specific reference to Ayrton Senna and others, not all collisions are accidental. --Falcadore (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A fire lis also an accident but can cause a retire without causing a crash/collision. Button retired in Monaco this year because a mechanic accidentally left something on the car and damaged the car. A car can also retired due to a spin-off and not crashing, but by stalling the engine or burying the car in the gravel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.73.32.3 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

While the sidepod blank may have been left inside the car accidentally, the retirement was ultimately caused by the engine failure, not the mechanics accidents, as many such accidents can be surviveable in terms of finishing a race. Where accident is used is in the term of a car accident. A car spinning of and not resuming could be spun-off, or electrics, or bogged and not be 'accident'. Accident would refer to single car crashes into solid objects and I think that would be fairly obvious. --Falcadore (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't up to us to decide. We are not Wikinews, let alone a blog site. We pass on the opinion and observation of reliable sources. If it isn't given in a reliable third-party source then it doesn't belong here. Pyrope 01:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone fancy reviewing this article?

Hi. I nominated McLaren M2B to be a good article last month but it hasn't been reviewed yet so I thought I'd put it on here to see if anyone feels like doing it. Or just any comments about improving it. SamH (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've done a review, although obviously others are free to comment. 4u1e (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Shared drives in driver results tables

Just to see if anyone else has an opinion on this, regarding shared drives in driver results tables. Generally, throughout the driver results tables, only the best result is shown, with an asterisk or suchlike indicating a shared drive. Another editor has expressed a desire to show all shared drive results in the results tables, e.g. 2+3, or 4+Ret, Ret+Ret etc, although he's only interested in doing one result here, one result there, rather than keeping a table consistent. While I feel it's unnecessary to show retirements or non-scoring finishes in the tables, it might be worth including the few occasions where a driver scored points for two finishes, as it were, like Maurice Trintignant and Nino Farina at the 1955 Argentine Grand Prix. It's worth noting that a slew of "Ret+Ret" being inserted into the tables will wreck the view of the tables, there not really being enough space. Another question is illegal (post-1958) shared drives, which I believe are beyond the scope of these tables and are best dealt with in the race articles. Any thoughts? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think all this information should go in to the tables, as long as possible. We want them complete, don't we? Retired drivers also did take part in the race. If "Ret+ret" makes a column to broad, maybe you could write "Ret<br>+ret" to make the row broader instead. That way, it does not wreck the whole table down the years. John Anderson (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

500 races for Lotus

Sorry for bringing this up again, but how can Lotus be allowed to claim it is their 500th race today (and write it on the cars) if they are a new team this year? -Ulla — 12:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Because they can. Because there's no such thing as PR Police, and any publicity is good publicity. --Falcadore (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a discussion board for formula one issues in general, this is a talk page regarding how Wikipedia should present information regarding formula one. We have already discussed this Lotus issue, and even if one might be less than satisfied with the result of these discussions, I think there is no point in question it as long as you don't have any more significant information than this to support your view. We already know Lotus consider themselves to be the direct successor of the previous Lotus and that they own the right to the name and have the blessing of the family of the founder of the original team, but we have reached another conclusion here at Wikipedia. John Anderson (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia issue, not a discussion of Formula One in general. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia has reached its own conclusion at all. Nobody denies that Lotus Racing consider themselves to be the direct successor of the previous Lotus and that they own the right to the name and have the blessing of the family of the founder of the original team. What's important is that many other people take the view that it's a different team with the same name, including the FIA [2], and Wikipedia has in this case, sided with the majority view. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2010 (Utc)

Different team with a similar name, surely! But I agree with the comments above: we're consistent with many sources in treating this as a new team, which doesn't mean that we can't report the widely published story of this as the 500th race. 4u1e (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It is the 500th race for Lotus. That is a fact. It is also a fact that it is the ninth race for Lotus Racing. There is no such team as just 'Lotus'. According to Wikipedia, Team Lotus has competed in 489 races, while Lotus Racing has competed in nine. Not sure where the extra two are, but Lotus as a brand has had 500 races. However, this does not matter as there is little similarity between the two teams other than name. - mspete93 18:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Since they have the right to the name Lotus they should be considered a continuation of the Lotus brand. But for some reason on wikipedia there is a lot of opposition to that fact. I think it has something to do with the fact that now Malaysians own the name.  Dr. Loosmark  19:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it has to do with the fact that there is little to no connection between the two. I'd feel the same if it were British owned. As has been pointed out, the FIA treat it as a separate entity, which should be a good enough reason by itself. 4u1e (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If this: [3] is the proof that the FIA treat them as a separate entity, then Mercedes should be treated as a new, separate entity as well: [4].  Dr. Loosmark  19:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You could certainly argue it that way. On the other hand, unlike Lotus, Mercedes GP is (broadly speaking) under the same ownership as the 1950s and 1930s iterations, so you could also argue that this is different. I don't see any pressing reason to change the status quo. The main point I wanted to make was our treatment of Lotus Racing has nothing to do with its Malaysian ownership. 4u1e (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's be honest, it's not the slight difference in the names which makes them separate teams. John Anderson (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you can't hold that up as evidence that they didn't complete five hundred races. The cars ran with a special livery to commemorate the achievement, and if you look at this article (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/06/22/special-logo-for-lotuss-500th-race/), you'll see that Clive Chapman - Colin's son - was also present to celebrate, and also said that "it is nice that Lotus Racing is celebrating its 500th Grand Prix", so he clearl endorses it as well. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't hold anything up as evidence. I still think the old and the new Lotus should be treated as the same formula one team, but we reached a consensus against it half a year ago and I accept that. The little difference in the names is however not what constituted the reason for the consensus and could never do, and I just pointed that out. John Anderson (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Lotus the car company was represented for its 500th race. This has no affect on whether or not it's the same racing team, which it is not. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a self-contradiction. :-) John Anderson (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. This would be similar to considering Mugen-Honda's race entries to be the same as Honda's entries. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If it is the 500th race for 'Lotus the car company' then it is the 500th race for Lotus. You can't detach the two teams from oneanother if you can't say one or the other has nothing to do with Lotus cars - that's the contradiction in your statement, as I see it. (BTW, Mugen-Honda was never a race team, Mugen-Honda was an engine supplier, but Honda raced in the 60s and in the last decade and they are considered the same team by Wikipedia and same goes for the present Mercedes GP and Mercedes-Benz of the 50s.) John Anderson (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The main problem we have is that Lotus Racing have changed their position on this. When the team was announced, and even as late as the first few races this year, Fernandes and Gascoyne were both absolutely explicit that Lotus Racing was not a continuation of Team Lotus and that while they were proud to be bringing the Lotus name back into F1 they didn't want to adopt the mantle of the Chapman-era entity. However, since they haven't made a complete embarrassment of themselves, and as the team have avoided the potential backlash that may have occurred had they claimed from day one to be CABC's rightful heir, they are starting to claim more of the Lotus glory; and why wouldn't they? Colin Chapman has also changed his position, as initially he echoed the Lotus Racing line. Bear in mind also that Colin is not impartial. He (and his mother) still makes a living flogging the Lotus brand, through Classic Team Lotus and associated investments such as Ketteringham Hall, so having the Lotus name back in the racing eye is something he has a vested interest in. Of course he is also therefore very careful to protect that brand and his father's legacy, so you can understand his reluctance earlier. Other Lotus eminences (Cedric Selzer, Mario Andretti etc.) who have expressed an opinion seem to be split 50:50. Anyway, besides all that, it really isn't up to us here at WP:F1 to decide whether they are or aren't the same. We go by reliable third-party sources. Pyrope 18:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Despite claiming some Lotus glory, neither Fernandes or Gascoyne are stupid enough to entirely fall for it, and would still acknowledge that it is a new team (as Fernandes continually repeats every race, in fact), even if it has brought Lotus back to F1 (which, regardless of some people's rose-tinted sentiments, it factually has). - mspete93 18:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Has it brought Lotus back or has it not? Either it is conected to Lotus or it isn't. You can't logically claim it is both. Well, nevermind, I won't continue this debate. I think you know my view but also that I (still) accept the consensus we reached some months ago. John Anderson (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Formula 2

Does anybody know what happened to Philipp Eng in race 1 at Portimao? Seems he got a penalty after the race or something.  Dr. Loosmark  13:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This is better asked at either Talk:2010 FIA Formula Two Championship season or Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Motorsport. - mspete93 14:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Valenciagate?

Can this article possibly be saved or just speedy deleted. Seems like a lot of article for a relatively minor incident that some drivers seem to spend a lot of time whining about. Is it really deserving of a full article? --Falcadore (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Relatively minor incident? I hope you are kidding. According to this Autosport's article [5] The FIA is aware, however, that the events of Sunday have highlighted several potential problems with the current safety car regulations, and has called an extraordinary meeting of thinktank, the Sporting Working Group, to go through the issues next week ahead of the British Grand Prix.. Since when is the FIA calling extraordinary meetings for minor accidents? What the Valenciagate article needs is other sources rather than just the Marca plus it should be more neutral. But the incident in itself is notable enough IMO.  Dr. Loosmark  21:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete now. It is a minor incident, easily summed up in the race article. Unless this turns into a Crashgate or spy scandal, with a much bigger issue and coverage, then there's simply no need for a separate article. QueenCake (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Potential problems I think is a key phrase there. Not problems, potential problems. The FIA obviously believe to be minor or they wouldn't say the problems were potential, they'd be actual problems.

Isn't this just giving one drive-thru penalty massive over-coverage? --Falcadore (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This has got to go. No way is this worth its own article, and there's that hideous, invented title. This was a minor race incident, the kind that happens a lot, whatever the resulting issues and possible consequences. Merge to the main race article in seriously stripped-down form. The only reason the Spanish press went nuts over it is that Alonso was the perceived victim. No major press coverage anywhere else at all. Talk about overkill. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The more I read it, the worse it is. The grammar is terrible, there is serious bias in there - Guilty: Hamilton. It's actually a horrendous piece of trash, not worthy of any kind of encyclopedia. I actually like Alonso but this is rubbish. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the correct deletion criteria? Does it qualify for speedy as patent nonsense? --Falcadore (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, unfortunately - it specifically excludes poor writing, bad translations, implausible theories etc. We might need to take it to AfD. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's badly-written, it's covered elsewhere, it's highly-judgemental, clearly favouring the Ferraris. You could probably set it up for being a candidate for speedy deletion on the basis that it's redundant, not noteworthy, and couldn't be salvaged becase there's no way you could write it with a neutral POV. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the critisism here, erase the article. Also, I'm getting pretty tired of people naming all alleged scandals "[Something]gate". :-p John Anderson (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If it weren't for Richard Nixon, we'd have nothing to name our controversies. But this is not a "scandal" as the author called it. A scandal, according to Wikipedia, is "a widely publicized allegation or set of allegations that damages the reputation of an institution, individual or creed" ... this fulfils none of those criteria, unless you're Ferrari or a Ferrari fan. The overuse of Spanish language articles as references (all except one) are testament to that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It can easily be covered by the article on the race. This isn't something we'll be hearing in years to come, like Spygate or Crashgate, unless Ferrari keep bringing it up, which they probably will. - mspete93 15:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As another angle on this, the 2010 European GP article is less than 32kb long in its current state, so there's still plenty of room to fit in any more material that is required and no need to create a POV fork. I doubt we should be using 'Valenciagate' as an article title either - googling valenciagate and Alonso produces 11 hits. The top one is our 'article' and most of the others are blogs, at least one of which is hping that the term is not applied to this incident! 4u1e (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I just did a re-write. The incredible pro-Ferrari an anti-Hamilton bias were annoying me. I've tried to write it with neutral POV, but that means there are no longer and references because I don't have any at hand. However, I still think that this is article is totally unnecessary and should be deleted. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I still say get rid of the Valenciagate article and merge any useful content to the GP article. No-one other than Loosmark is arguing to keep it as a separate article and his argument that it is notable does not mean that the incident requires its own article. 4u1e (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This "incident" could have as many references as it wants still would not warrant it having a separate page. If this kind of article is allowed do we have a page on every single incident that ever occurs. Precedent for not having a separate page is seen in the 1994 Australian Grand Prix the 1997 European Grand Prix the 2002 Austrian Grand Prix the 2002 and 2005 United States Grand Prix and 2006 Monaco Grand Prix. One of the only articles with a legitimate spinoff is the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix. Racing events do not warrant separate pages they are incorporated in to the race summary page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 4u1e and others. Note that Loosmark is currently blocked, so he can't argue his case at the moment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD has begun. I'm sure Dr.Loosmark will be unblocked in time to participate. --Falcadore (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Engine as a stressed chassis component; anyone have a source?

I'm writing about the McLaren M7A using its DFV engine as a stressed chassis component and am trying to find a source. The text I'd like to add is:

"Using the engine as a stressed chassis component followed the precedent set by Lotus with their 43 and 49 cars and was in contrast to the previous racing car convention and McLaren's earlier designs where a full-length chassis surrounded and supported an un-stressed engine."

Can anyone tell me if what I've written is correct and where I can find an online source or if anyone has a print source for which they can tell me the relevant page numbers? Specifically it's the bolded bit I'm struggling with (I have sources about McLaren). Thanks, SamH (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As with so many things Lotus "pioneered", they weren't actually the first but they did do it best. The first engines to carry a portion of the structural load of the car appeared in the 1955 Lancia D50 (although when Ferrari took possession of these they rapidly assembled a spaceframe rear end to bypass the engine). As for the first car to run in F1 with the engine as a fully-stressed member this was the short-lived Ferrari 1512, which appeared in 1964. Chapman and Phillipe's use of the engine as a stressed member for the 43 was actually dictated by the H16's design (which is exactly how BRM intended it for their own 1966 P83 car) so you could argue that it was Tony Rudd, not Colin Chapman, that actually popularized the technique in Formula One. As with so many technical "breakthroughs" in Formula One, this is actually a case of evolution, not revolution, so to say that "it was in contrast to previous racing car convention" is taking things a bit far and would be better toned down. As for a printed reference, I seem to recall that David Tremayne and Mark Hughes' "Concise Encyclopedia of Formula One" got the story straight, but as my own copy is 5000km away I'm afraid that I can't give you chapter and verse. Hope that helps? Pyrope 18:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I guessed that others had tried using the engine as a structural unit before Lotus but thought that it was probably Lotus who popularised it, esp. by doing it with the DFV. I've got The Concise Encyclopaedia but unfortunately it only hints at the information, it doesn't definitively say who did what. I'll probably just write that it was in contrast to McLaren's previous designs but if anyone has a source that goes into more detail, let me know. Thanks again, SamH (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Multiple links

Hi all

What is the policy on linking in tables - is it normal to link every iteration of Ford or Newman Haas for example in the Mario Andretti article ?

Mario_Andretti#Racing_career_results and Mario_Andretti#Indianapolis_500_results

I only ask as AWB raises it as a possible problem - obvioulsy if it is normal to list them that way then fine but it does seem a little over the top to have between 15 and 20 links to exactly the same thing in the same table. I would have thought every 5 or so would be enough

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. For good reason. It is due to the fundamentally different different way that people use and interact with tables compared to prose text. While with text you start at the top and work down, with tables you tend to scan down a particular column and then read across. Finding a term that isn't linked then poses a problem as you need to search back up the new column for the first linked occurrence. Linking in tables doesn't impede readability, so therefore there isn't really a good reason not to. Weigh up the pros and cons and links come out ahead. Pyrope 02:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

TD in results matrices

What's with the sudden rash of TD's that have appeared in results matrices in season summaries? Why are they being added to many seasons, when: a) I had thought that previously the TD was used specifically in those seasons when test drivers took a much more formal part of the weekend... and b) If you only drove in a practice session, you haven't really taken any part in the weekend. Practices times do not count towards any part of the results, the only it helps is that it may provide testing data to help regular race drivers further tune their cars, but in a lot of cases these are young and or pay drivers, who are much less likely to be able to provide feedback to the crews that the regular drivers did not so it would be supposition on our part to suggest that they did contribute in any way. Do we really want these TD's rippling across results tables? --Falcadore (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Where are these new additions? "TD" only applies where a driver has taken part in a practice session during a race weekend, i.e. Friday, more recently just Friday morning. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean - in the season articles. I was being a bit blind there... No, I didn't think test driver appearances went in those tables, I don't remember there being a discussion on it. I think that, given that they have no bearing on the WDC, and they are WDC tables, they shouldn't be there. The "TD" thing was mainly meant for driver articles, I thought. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Expatriate categories

An editor has been adding categories "Xian expatriates in Y" to a lot of motorsport driver articles, to reflect the fact that those drivers have, at one time or another, lived in foreign countries. This means in some cases that a driver will have three or more new categories which, I believe, are not particularly relevant. There is a short disucssion here at the editor's talk page, please weigh in with your opinions (either there or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#Expatriate categories) and maybe we can establish a consensus. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ford links in winners tables

An IP editor has changed the "Ford" links in the winners tables in the "<country> Grand Prix" articles to link to Cosworth (e.g. this edit), thereby making them inconsistent with the race report, driver and team articles, where "Ford" links to Ford or Ford Motor Company. Is there consensus for me to revert these changes? DH85868993 (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

We had a discussion about this some time ago, which I think resulted in a desire for a Ford in motorsport article, which no-one has braved yet. The debate centred around how the various engines were badged, be it Cosworth or Ford. Whichever, Ford is not desirable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought the consensus was as you describe it, DH. There is a very scrappy Ford Racing article, by the way, although I'm not sure that the claim that the title covers all Ford's motorsport activities is accurate. Seems more likely that it's a US thing. In the absence of a Ford in motorsport article, we could pipe to the relevant section of the main Ford article instead. Just a thought. 4u1e (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Statistics Tables

Evening all, just want to bring back the issue of too many tables in the modern Formula One season articles. I know there was something of a discussion about this last month, and many of you wanted them ditched, but I've been away since so I never saw if it was followed up. These tables take up a large amount of space, and increases the load time of many articles, to the point of taking several seconds to load up. Ditching the Statistics tables is the best place to start, not only are they duplicating the same information repeated above in a small unfriendly format, it contravenes WP:NOT#STATS. Shall we get rid of them? QueenCake (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm one for ditching the stats tables, yes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought we'd already discussed doing this somewhere. I'm struggling to load the 2010 page as it is (almost all other Wikipedia pages are fine). - mspete93 21:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Racing is so much about statistics. Maybe move them to special articles? John Anderson (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

How is racing about statistics? Any sport has statistics, but racing does not need any more than any other sport. Delete those that are redundant or overkill for an article such as this. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Motor Racing is about cars going around the track, not to compile statistics over. If you want a big stats table, look on a specialist site, it's beyond our remit here. We already provide the results table to see who did what, and that's all the vast majority will ever want to know.

If everyone is fine with it, I will probably delete them tomorrow. QueenCake (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

All Statistics tables for the modern era have been removed. Similar tables remain on the older articles, but as many lack the full results tables there is little point in removing them just yet. QueenCake (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Links in F1 season pages

When did it start happening in "teams and drivers" sections on pages such as 2009 Formula One season and others that drivers who didn't compete the full season had their first and last races linked. I see that this achieves nothing and isn't a good idea. Revert to simple text form? (all that's necessary, plenty of other links) Officially Mr X (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I never noticed when to be honest, but I see no point in having linking to races. Revert, simply table clutter. QueenCake (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've not seen how many years back it goes yet. It seems sensible to revert, as the links achieve nothing. Officially Mr X (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

2008 Hungarian Grand Prix - GAN

This is just to let everyone know that I have nominated 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix for Good Article status. Anyone who wishes to review the article is welcome to do so.--Midgrid(talk) 05:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are the complete overviews of the formula one season deleted

I mean were you can sea how muts poles, races, wins, podiums, fastet laps, starts, finishes, a team or a drivers made. Why is it deleted User:Kevintjeerdsma1996 (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Look at the discussions above, the Statistics tables (which I presume you were referring to), were duplication of information, that is present in the results table. It was decided here to remove them. QueenCake (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Overviews are somewhat lacking in several articles. There is very little text description on some season articles at all. It's hard to delete what never existed. What was deleted could never be called overviews, it was just statistics duplication. --Falcadore (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Constructors end of season tables (late 50s)

I've started going through all of the races (starting in the mid 50s) adding championship standings to each race, as they stood after that race. All going to plan so far, I've just kept the same template as the early 50s (and then later in the 90s onwards) and I'm pretty pleased so far. However, post 1958 there was the constructors championship as well, and most of them are just the name of the team and the total points scored. So I think we should continue along the same vein as the table in 1958, not like the one 1959 as this is in a format completely different to the drivers table - it lists points scored rather than positions. What do people think about this? It will take a while, unfortunately. Allypap81 (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely use the 1958 "results" format (i.e. consistent with the Drivers' tables and recent season Constructors' tables) rather than the 1959 "points" format. Two points (for the project) to consider:

• The 1958 Manufacturers table has a "Driver" column instead of the "Car No" column of the recent season articles. Of course a "Car No" column would be completely useless for seasons before 1974 (when numbers changed from race to race), so I guess the question is whether we have the "Driver" column for seasons before 1974 or nothing at all.
• In the 1958 table, the second column is labelled "Manufacturer" rather than "Constructor" as in the recent season articles. I believe this was a deliberate choice by an editor to reflect the fact that the championship was called the "International Cup for F1 Manufacturers" until 1981 when (I believe) it was renamed the "Formula One Constructors Championship".

DH85868993 (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should keep the driver column in the table, if nothing more it'll be much easier while compiling the table. Unless, of course, we only include the best score for the team at each race (as only the best score was counted), which of course would only be valid until 1979 when all scores from a team counted towards their total. 1959's table does this. I think it would be better to include all drivers, as the tables in the modern era include both drivers.

I'd also agree that the "Manufacturers" label should be used while the championship was called the "International Cup for F1 Manufacturers". When this was, I'm not sure - according to the F1 article, in 1981 the rules changed to say teams had to build their own chassis so I guess it was then. Allypap81 (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Some years will get very unwieldy if we include every driver who contributed points. Additionally down the track some other edittors will take that as precedent to enlarge recent seasons tables so that each driver gets their own line in the table. By contrast do we split the drivers tables into separate lines for when they shift teams mid year? No, and nor should we.

For all seasons where only the best score was recorded, just have a single line with the points scored at the round with no driver names indicated. How hard is it to look at the preceeding drivers table and look up who would have scored those points? We are not writing these articles for six-year-olds. --Falcadore (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As I was about to add when you commented, looking at the table it's getting very complicated, especially with privateers as all of their entries could (if they finished highest in their make of car) count towards the contructor total. I'm starting to like the idea of just one column for each contructor (as per 1959) but still including positions rather than points scored (as per 1958 and all drivers tables). This will also make it much easier to create :) Anyway, one point I was going to raise was that "Tojeiro-Climax" and "Emeryson-Alta" aren't included in the points table, but are in the entrants table. However, there is no mention of them in the pages of the races they were supposed to have entered. Is there a need for them to be added to the points table, or removed from the entrants table, or just be kept as is? Allypap81 (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

British vs English

There is an English flag next to Brundle in the Benetton B192 article. Shouldn't there be the Union Jack instead? Or am I missing something?  Dr. Loosmark  18:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You're not missing anything; I've corrected the flag.--Midgrid(talk) 18:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Constructors end of season table 1958

Hi, I've just finished doing the 1958 table for constructors as we discussed a couple items above, and wondered whether this is acceptable? I'm happy with it, but I'd just like to know that you guys think it's OK before I go ahead and do any more! It's reasonably easy to do, so I've no problem doing them :) Allypap81 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

F1 (BBC)

I notice the existence of F1 (BBC). What do we think? Improve? Delete? Merge into BBC Sport? Something else? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't we delete a similar article a few months ago? There is pretty much nothing on that page, and I doubt there is anything notable to add. Delete it. QueenCake (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The last article like this was indeed deletedQueenCake (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated this article for deletion here QueenCake (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Date of birth in driver infobox

Does anyone object to a driver's date of birth field being added to the driver infobox template? It seems like basic info and most other sport infoboxes include it. The handy thing is that it shows a driver's age, or age when he died, rather than having to work it out from the date of birth in the text. It's a fairly simple thing to do and I'm happy to add the field to each driver article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No argument from me, I've been thinking along similar lines recently. I assume you are intending to use the {{birth date and age}} and related templates? Pyrope 14:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I've been moonlighting with a few footballer articles and it works well for them, so I'll do it the same way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Good, and useful idea. No objections from me. Orphan Wiki 16:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll start on it then, and if anyone doesn't like it, I'll stop and we'll have a chat about it :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fly in that particular ointment turns out to be that it's more complicated than I thought, and I don't know how to do it. Any ideas? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There's an example on the Jim Clark page at present; don't know if it looks alright... Cs-wolves(talk) 23:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Perfect! :D Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton

Lewis Hamilton has been put up for Good Article Reassessment. 4u1e (talk) 05:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

1968 constructors table

Hi, me again. I've now got to 1968, where the currect table seems entirely incorrect. As far as I can tell, the compiler has included all scores from the constructor, rather than only the best score. I've checked the list of pointscoring systems article and it says (under footnote 8) that the one score per constructor system stayed in use until 1978. I've also checked on f1.com for the final standings and the two calculations I've done so far are correct according to their records. So I'm gonna recalculate the scores based on the one score system while I'm re-formatting the table. :) Just thought I'd let you know when you see the scores change as well as the format! Allypap81 (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice work I may say! I did a few constructors points tables from the 80s, and yes there often is an error or two. Putting all that info in at once is bound to give a few errors; the results on f1.com are generally accurate. As a FYI, for consistency sake, the drivers table is put before the constructors table, and the old points tables are to be removed. Good work though :) QueenCake (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sounds good to me, great work! Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced all of the old table with my new ones as far as I know, are there any I've missed? Also I noticed that some constructors tables were above the drivers ones, but I dunno how to swap them. How do I do it?Allypap81 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

When you're editing the page, copy the drivers table, and then paste it to above the constructors. Nothing more to it than that :) QueenCake (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)