Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archived Talk page

Page was 96 K, way too large. (Suggested is < 32K, strong suggestion of < 50 K.) Summary of semi active discussions: (NB: If they are still active, move them here, don't edit there...)

Race Report Infoboxes (consensus never reached on merging boxes)
Results tables abbreviations (consensus not reached on what the standard should be)
Tire Templates created (informing us of an easy to use template system for tyre manufaturers)

Any discussions that were overlooked, my sincerest apologies, if they are/should be active, copy/paste them to this page. -slowpokeiv 15:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Page had reached 98K again. Most long discussions are still active, so I removed some of the example content to a new archive page. Links are provided where the charts once stood.

Example Lap Charts

Once again, my apologies if this ruffles feathers, but the charts are still there and are easily accessible. Pyrope 14:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Race and Career Result Charts

If you have any comments on F1 summary tables then please make them in this section and do not start a new comment. This is a refactored section into which a number of previous sections have been collated. Discussion of the format of various types of summary chart are a regular feature of this page and this has resulted in a number of topics, not always clearly named, appearing here. I have tried to bring these together into this section in an attempt to make sure that nobody has their pov overlooked.

I have pruned and trimmed only slightly, and some arguments have been transposed into a more relevant section, but at all time I have intended to maintain the sense and opinion of the original authors. If you disagree with any of my actions, please feel free to revert them, but please explain your actions when you do. Thanks people and I hope we reach some agreement soon! Pyrope 13:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Teams vs. Constructors

I've known about this for a while, but it's now affecting an article I've got an interest in (Jack Brabham), so I feel an urge to do something about it :).

Wikiproject F1 is based on a slight misconception regarding F1 teams and constructors. For the last 20 years these have been more or less synonymous because of the rules introduced in the early 1980s that teams could not sell their designs to each other. In effect this means that teams all design and build their own cars and are all constructors. There have been exceptions in recent years - Scuderia Italia for example was never a constructor, instead entering cars designed and built by Dallara and (disastrously) Lola - but even then they had exclusive rights to that design. From 1950 to the early 1980s this was not the case - Frank Williams Racing Cars, Rob Walker Racing Team, RAM Racing, Brabham Racing Organisation (read article for explanation!) and many others did not build their own cars and were not constructors - March, MRD (see Brabham article again!) and Lotus chassis were popular buys.

The case that has gotten me worked up on this now is Jack Brabham. User:AAFL has very kindly been adding Brabham's results to his page, but at the start of the 1962 season Jack's team appears as Team Lotus. Jack never drove for Lotus, but he did drive a customer Lotus, for the first half of 1962 while Motor Racing Developments Ltd worked on the first F1 Brabham chassis. The team he drove for was the Brabham Racing Organisation. AAFL's 'mistake' is understandable because the current templates and tables make no allowance for 'team' and 'constructor' being two different things. See talk:WilliamsF1 ('Removal of 1976 material') for confusion arising from a similar problem. I've seen quite a few similar problems - especially in the results tables.

This is not just a historical problem. From 2008 teams will once again be able to buy chassis from each other. If the FIA follows the historical precedent (which they may not do - has anyone seen anything published on this yet?) then the problem will once again arise.

The obvious thing to do is to make sure that all the relevant pages and templates have both 'team' and 'constructor' given. The problem with that is that it's a very big job and that there would be about 20 years worth of redundant data where team=constructor (although there are exceptions: Scuderia Italia, Larrousse and the Team Haas/Beatrice team (which appears as part of the Lola article) come to mind).

Options seem to be:

Change 'Team' to 'Constructor' in all contexts - because championship results are based on constructors, not teams, this would be consistent in all cases, but might cause confusion because people usually focus on the teams. There is a further complication here in that technically the constructor always used to be a combination of the car manufacturer (e.g. Brabham) and the engine manufacturer (e.g. Repco). See 1966 Formula One season for two different Brabham listings in the constructors championship, each with a different engine: This is correct, but would make using just 'constructor' more difficult.
Stick with 'Team' everywhere and correct instances in which the constructors names is used. This won't square with the official results which are based on the constructor, not the team.
Add both 'team' and 'constructor' - can be completely accurate, but big job and redundant in many cases.
Throw up our hands and forget about it. Easy, but leads to quite a lot of inconsistent (and wrong!) information.

What do others think? --4u1e 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

How about sticking with 'Team', and adding asterisks/footnotes when a different constructor is used? That saves all of the tables being modified, whilst clarifying the situation with drivers (and teams) that this issue affects.--Diniz 18:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank heavens someone else is having these problems. As my interest in F1 is mostly pre-1980 I come across these fraustrations all too often. The problem is one of accuracy. To be completely accurate, we should be using the term "Entrant" and not "Team", and this would allow Private entries to be included. Also, both chassis and engine need to be identified in the "constructor" listings, but as some drivers and teams used more than one of each in any given season this could complicate matters. It might be possible to do this for individual race summaries, but for a whole season it would make the table enormous. How about a combination of --Diniz's Jordan table below for individual teams/entrants, and an abbreviated listing for drivers, with only their principal chassis-engine combination listed. Alternatively it may be a good idea to stack different chassis-engine combinations vertically, like this example I knocked together for Piers Courage:

p.s. I fancied having a go at someone who had a more convoluted career, so I chose John Surtees. I reckon it works quite well, what do you think? Pyrope 08:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position)

Year	Entrant	Chassis	Engine	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	WDC	Points
1967	British Racing Motors	Lotus 25	BRM	RSA Ret												-	0
1967	British Racing Motors	BRM P261	BRM		MON Ret	NED	BEL	FRA	GBR DNS	GER	CAN	ITA	USA	MEX		-	0
1968	Reg Parnell Racing	BRM P126	BRM	RSA	ESP Ret	MON Ret	BEL Ret	NED Ret	FRA 6	GBR 8	GER 8	ITA 4	CAN Ret	USA Ret	MEX Ret	19th	4
1969	Frank Williams Racing Cars	Brabham B26A	Ford	RSA	ESP Ret	MON 2	NED Ret	FRA Ret	GBR 5	GER Ret	ITA 5	CAN Ret	USA 2	MEX 10		8th	18
1970	Frank Williams Racing Cars	De Tomaso 505	Ford	RSA Ret	ESP DNS	MON NC	BEL Ret	NED Ret								-	0

I'm working on a results table for Jordan, and I've modified it to include chassis and engine, i.e.: (key) (results in bold indicate pole position)

Year	Chassis	Engine	Drivers	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	Points	WCC
1991	Jordan 191	Ford		USA	BRA	SMR	MON	CAN	MEX	FRA	GBR	GER	HUN	BEL	ITA	POR	ESP	JPN	AUS	13	5th
			Bertrand Gachot	10	13	Ret	8	5	Ret	Ret	6	6	9
			Michael Schumacher											Ret
			Roberto Moreno												Ret	10
			Alessandro Zanardi														9	Ret	9
			Andrea de Cesaris	DNPQ	Ret	Ret	Ret	4	4	6	Ret	5	7	13	7	8	Ret	Ret	8
1992	Jordan 192	Yamaha V12		RSA	MEX	BRA	ESP	SMR	MON	CAN	FRA	GBR	GER	HUN	BEL	ITA	POR	JPN	AUS	1	=11th
			Stefano Modena	DNQ	Ret	Ret	DNQ	Ret	Ret	Ret	Ret	Ret	DNQ	Ret	15	DNQ	13	7	6
			Mauricio Gugelmin	11	Ret	Ret	Ret	7	Ret	Ret	Ret	Ret	15	10	14	Ret	Ret	Ret	Ret

etc.

What do you think?--Diniz 13:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I just LOVE it.Hektor 15:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like some clarification on this too, with regard to the driver articles, which I spend a lot of time on. I try to stick to putting teams in the results tables, rather than constructors, because it always said "Team", not "Constructor". If someone DNQ'd a two-year old March thrown together by some halfwits in the corner of a pit garage, it's very misleading and wrong to say that the driver drove for March Engineering. I always try to elaborate on it in the body of the article, but it would be great if the table itself could make it clear. Or does it not matter? What do people think? Bretonbanquet 17:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I think Diniz's proposal for results tables on the team/constructor articles is absolutely fantastic. Bretonbanquet 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys! :)--Diniz 17:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Jordan Grand Prix table is now finished; I have put it in the article.--Diniz 19:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've started adding tyre manufacturers (the little logos) to these tables as well, as it seems like the next logical step.--Diniz 13:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think in driver articles it is most important to put the actual team, not the constructor. To be fair, this is what the current table says, but it is often filled in with the constructor instead. Going way back in time to when it was just the driver and his mechanic, 'team' can become a bit meaningless: Jack Brabham ran a Maserati 250F in the 1956 British Grand Prix - but it was basically just him running it. I'm not sure what you could put for the team other than 'Private' (for Private entry). Can we agree that this is a new option for the oldest races?

I think the driver table could also stand having the constructor listed as well, so it would look like this: (key) (Races in bold indicate pole position)

Year	Team	Constructor	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	WDC
1955	Private	Cooper	ARG	MON	IND	BEL	DUT	GBR ret	ITA		NA
1956	Private	Maserati	ARG	MON	IND	BEL	FRA	GBR ret	GER	ITA	NA
1957	Cooper Car Company	Cooper	ARG	MON 6	IND	FRA ret	GBR ret	GER	PES 7	ITA	NA

I thought about this idea, but the danger is that the table becomes too long to fit on the page. Unless it can be made smaller of course, but then it shouldn't be so small that it becomes hard to read. In the driver tables that I do, I list the name of the team as opposed to "private" since it just seems more accurate - more information is good, I guess. Bretonbanquet 00:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes - but there is no name for those teams. Brabham didn't drive for Maserati, or for Cooper (in 1955 anyway) it was him and a mechanic and car he had bought (or built in the case of the Cooper!). Saying he drove for the Maserati team is misleading at best!

In my opinion, regarding driver's articles, the main text of the article should be used to define the differing chassis and engine configurations while the results charts should concentrate on the driver's results since the main thrust of the article is on the driver himself and not the machinery. The danger with expanding charts is that you run the risk of losing the reader in a maze of information when we need only be concentrating on the driver's results.Orsoni 12:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Why, when it can be concisely and clearly summarised in a simple box? Why clutter the text with inelegant "and then he drove this car with this engine in this race and got this result, and then he drove this car in this race with this engine and got this result, and.... etc etc etc" ad infinitum ad nauseum. The charts as they stand with the "standard" format are exceptionally confusing as they are so limited as to be unable to accurately reflect a driver's career. In fact, for drivers pre-1980 they are often quite simply incapable of showing accurate information. The clarity of the results is not harmed by the alternative format, and in fact it makes it much clearer to see where a driver had competed for more than one team or using more than one constructor's chassis in a single season. The original table is a mess, and was created with no thought for how the majorty of racing was conducted before the advent of the team=constructor rules. This is an encyclopedia, we should be about reference information; useful and, most crucially, accurate information. The old tables care not capable of this and need changing. This was discussed here previously and as I got no feedback for quite a few days I decided to try an example to demonstrate. Machinery, and proper team and constructor (NOT the same things) attribution of race results are a central part of a driver's career record, which as you point out is what each article is all about. Pyrope 13:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I did rather a lot of tables for driver articles, and I agree that the format needs plenty of work. Part of the reason why I lost interest was that people kept coming along and changing things on individual articles so that eventually we had about 8 different tables on the go. We need an absolutely nailed-on format for the driver results tables that leaves no room for ambiguity, confusion or argument. We also need a template that everyone is happy with, leaving no room for people to come along after 600 tables have been put together, and moan that something doesn't fit in with their idea of a wonderful colour scheme. I'm not savvy enough to invent one myself, but I'd be happy to take part in a discussion about what would be best, and help implement a new table on to articles across the board.

Pyrope, can we see the example you used to demonstrate your idea? That sounds like a good start. Bretonbanquet 13:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, I've just spotted the above discussion - sounds like one we had a while ago, after which nothing really happened. Hopefully this time we can sort something out. That example on the John Surtees page looks pretty good to me. The only thing I wondered about was differentiating between different chassis built by the same constructor within the same season - will things get complicated here, especially when drivers used one chassis for qualifying and a different one, perhaps a newer model, for the race? Bretonbanquet 14:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the feedback. I agree about the lack of consistency, and I do apologise for adding to that, but I think that the end result might be worth it. I have posted Piers Courage's table above, and I have reverted the John Surtees article to use as a longer example. I also stuck the Surtees table on my userpage just in case it goes walkies again. I chose Surtees partly because I met the man a few times and am consequently a big fan (although far too young to even remember the death throws of Team Surtees), but mostly because he had a fairly complex and long career path. Therefore his table is likely to be about as long as they will get and I needed to make sure that they didn't get too confusing. I added the precise chassis information as once you have a box for team and constructor it is the work of a moment and a couple of extra letters to add the chassis designation to the constructor name, and then it is possible to accurately link to those chassis that have their own pages (Lotus 49 etc.) Pyrope 14:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that the precise chassis information can often link to articles about individual chassis, like the Lotus 49, then that's a great reason to have it included. Hopefully then people will be inclined to write further articles on notable chassis. The Surtees table does appear to be about as long and complicated as we are going to get, as you say, and I think it works fine. I met Surtees too once, what a nice chap. Mind you, maybe some people who worked for him might give us an argument on that! Anyway, good stuff. Let's see how other contributors see it, and hopefully get a concensus.

Will there be similar chassis information on the later drivers, and indeed current drivers? I personally don't see why not, even though those tables will prove a lot less complicated. That way we will get uniformity throughout the 56-odd years of F1 racing.

How about the template? I had a discussion with someone only last night who went and changed it substantially without changing any of the articles... If we can agree on that too, then that would be a real achievement. Bretonbanquet 14:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am fairly sure that a part of the complexity in his career comes from his, erm, single-minded approach. I have conciously not included chassis changes where it is only a case that they ran the xxxB or xxxC varient, only major structural changes, to limit the number of rows shown. Using this method, post-1980 chassis information should be a doddle, as there are comparatively few years when major teams chopped and changed between last-year's and this-year's models. In fact, the McLaren MP4/1 was used for three years straight, if you count the A,B,C varients together. Pyrope 14:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Country codes

At present, there is no uniformity in the three-letter country codes used for Grand Prix countries in results tables. The codes for some countries seem to change with each driver's article (compare the codes for Germany, San Marino, and Malaysia in Kimi Räikkönen and Mark Webber). The standings tables in 2006 Formula One Season use ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 for three-letter country codes, and they look much better than the FIA's own 1-3 letter country codes (see example here). Should we adopt ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 as the standard for Wikipedia F1 results tables? Majin Izlude 23:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah this is probably my doing. I recently rewrote the Mark Webber article and did the results table myself, just using the Olympic country codes as that was what I was most familiar with and didn't realise the ISO codes were already being used. Personally I prefer the IOC ones as they make more "sense" for English speakers (eg GER instead of DEU for Germany; SUI instead of CHE for Switzerland), but I guess since most (all?) of the other tables use ISO i'll fix the Webber article. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 08:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to change it right now. All of the Formula One Season tables use ISO currently, but several of the drivers' tables, such as Räikkönen's, do not adhere to either system (using "BAH" for Bahrain and/or "MAL" for Malaysia). The IOC codes may be a better fit than ISO for the reason that you stated. After all, this is the English Wikipedia; if the IOC codes are easier to understand, why not use those? I would wait and see what others think about this before making changes either way. Majin Izlude 12:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I find the FIA 1-3 letter codes quite confusing, but have no real problem with ISO 2- or 3-letter codes. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What about ISO versus IOC (Olympic) three-letter codes? Majin Izlude 15:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless wikipedia has an overarching policy on this I'd suggest sticking with the FIA codes for consistency with other records. Do we know, for example, whether the IOC and ISO codes cover exactly the same countries? (As an aside, where did the FIA codes come from? They look like the codes used on stickers to put on the back of your car when driving through Europe?) 4u1e 26 April 2006

It appears that the FIA codes are based on the international license plate codes established by the United Nations Conventions on Road Traffic. Here is the UN's updated list of codes as of August 30, 2004 (in case the codes do not match up with the Wikipedia article).

The FIA's codes (from my first message) match that list for all of the smaller locations (Bahrain, Monaco, Malaysia, etc.), but there are two countries for which they do not match: Colombia and the USA. Colombia was not a part of the UN agreement, but it was given the designation "CO" anyway. The page on fia.com lists Juan Pablo Montoya's nationality as "COL." The USA's code is "USA" in the UN agreement and "US" on the FIA site. That's a bigger problem because we need a code for the US Grand Prix... Majin Izlude 16:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Just my .02: As I was the designing the F1 season results table, I decided upon ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 for one reason, and one reason only: It was the most universal standardization that I could come up with. The way I figured, if we wanted to have a world wide encyclopedia, and wanted to abbreviate throughout the entire encyclopedia as uniformly as possible, the ISO was a good a place as any.

Looking at this from a Encyclopediec POV, as opposed to an F1 POV, I would be opposed to the use of FIA codes where they differ. If we use FIA codes, in a general encyclopedia, we are in effect saying that before you can understand it, you must understand it the Formula One way.

I would also be opposed to the IOC codes, for the reason that they differ for historical reasons from ISO codes. This is not as strong an opposition however, as it is a more general and widely known abbreviation than FIA. -slowpokeiv 01:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that besides the countries there are also non-country Grand Prix, such as Las Vegas (LVG or LVS ?), Pacific, Europe, USA East and West, which cannnot be covered by ISO, and we would need unified codes for them as well. Could someone put a reference somewhere, like a reference table, I think we should avoid to have DEU and GER for Germany, SPA and ESP for Spain, etc...Hektor 06:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the ISO codes are really odd in some cases. "DEU" for Germany is really not a generally known code, nor is "MYS" for Malaysia. "GER" and "MAL" are much easier to understand. I realise that "DEU" is short for "Deutschland" but it's hardly consistent when Hungary is not "MAG" for example. Also, "SPA" for Spain can be mistaken for Spa Circuit. In addition, countries that no longer exist are not on the ISO list, like East Germany, and as Hektor points out, there are other races like Las Vegas and Pacific that also have no code.

I do a lot of results tables and it would be nice to sort this out and keep it consistent. I would personally go for a system of codes that is just easy to understand, rather than religiously stick to a set code that doesn't really suit our needs. Bretonbanquet 14:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A few disjointed thoughts, working backwards through the previous posts:

Bretonbanquet: The ISO code for Spain is "ESP", so that wouldn't present a problem. I don't have a problem with using "GER" and "MAL" for Germany and Malaysia (see below).

Hektor: I must admit that besides the European Grand Prix, I hadn't given much thought to non-country Grands Prix. After Las Vegas, it seems that the races that you mentioned could be PAC, EUR, USE, and USW respectively. Of course, we need to get consensus on all of those, too. As for a reference table: we definitely need one somewhere (if only for the non-country races), but as a relative newbie to Wikipedia, I have no idea where it would go. I can't imagine it on the mainspace (as it's not encyclopedic). I'm not sure if a table/guide would work better as a template or as another sub-page here (like the to-do list).

Finally, to slowpokeiv: Your reasoning about approaching this from an "Encyclopedic POV" instead of a strict "F1 POV" is quite convincing. We had a very similar issue recently with Mxcatania's edit of Template:Formula One teams (replacing drivers' last names with the three letter codes from television graphics (see talk page)).

Certainly, we don't want to confuse readers who aren't familiar with little-known codes. Arguably, the FIA codes are the least widely known of the three code systems mentioned in this discussion, and so I think they fail to provide what is best for F1 articles. Thus, I consider myself opposed to using the FIA codes. I have no preference between the ISO and IOC codes in prinicple; since you used ISO from the beginning, I have no problem continuing with that.

However, not all editors like all of the ISO codes (for example, at least three users in this discussion liked GER for Germany over DEU). So here is what I propose (in the loosest sense of the word): The creation of a page like Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Table codes where we can draw up and store our list (or table) of codes for Grand Prix locations. The list can be based on ISO for national Grands Prix, but will also include the addition of whatever codes we can agree on for non-country Grands Prix, as well as any changes where user consensus overrides the existing ISO codes. The talk page of the list/table will be used to carry out discussions and disputes over the codes instead of taking up even more space here. ^_^ --Majin Izlude 02:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

See Country codes for some existing standards.

USA (SEWilco 04:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

For the purposes of sorting this out, I have donated one of my sandboxes as a staging ground for the codes/table of said codes. Please feel free to edit as seen fit. (that, and I have not as much time as I would like...)-slowpokeiv 18:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, this. I have added in any codes that I have seen being used in F1 tables on Wikipedia, mainly in driver articles. This should be a great way of deciding once and for all which codes we want to use! Bretonbanquet 19:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-results: Injury/Illness, no-shows and bans

With regard to the results tables, particularly the ones on the driver articles, what is the concensus on races missed through injury or illness etc? I know Injuries are covered by "Inj", but I'm seeing people putting in other things like "ILL", which look a bit clumsy to me. Will there be others like "Took time off for family bereavement" or "Decided to drive in a different race", as Mario Andretti was occasionally prone to doing. Personally I'd leave all missed races blank, but I guess people want something in there to denote injury, not that we can be sure of being consistent with it across the board. Any ideas? Bretonbanquet 19:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

My view is that it's irrelevant for statistical purposes as to why a driver missed one GP or another, so I'd go for just leaving them blank. --Jsydave 22:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer keeping the "EX" tags, as I think that being banned from a race is worth noting. In any case, I'd like to clarify what you're proposing. You want to remove all the codes for missed races, so Template:F1 driver results legend 2 would look like this:

Colour	Result
Gold	Winner
Silver	2nd place
Bronze	3rd place
Green	Points finish
Blue	Non-points finish, inc. non-classified finish
Purple	Did not finish (Ret)
Red	Did not qualify (DNQ)
Black	Disqualified (DSQ)
White	Did not start (DNS)
Light blue	Friday test driver (TD) - 2003-2006 only
Blank	Did not participate

Majin Izlude ^talk 13:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the current F1 template has too many "blank" boxes which should be assinged some sort of colour such as red for excluded drives and other colours for ill and injured and not turning up.--Lucy-marie 23:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The template has been discussed a lot in the past and now several hundred articles have to be changed every time the template is changed. The blank boxes have been discussed and several alternatives have been tried. My personal opinion is that injuries / illnesses should not be a part of the tables since the reason a driver did not take part is irrelevant - only the results are relevant. It is also impossible to be consistent across the whole group of 900+ drivers since often we simply don't know whether races were missed due to injury etc, or due to other reasons. Exclusions - well, no-one seems to understand exclusions here and are lumping punitive race weekend exclusions with race bans, which are totally different. The tables have some problems, mainly caused by people having their own definitions of the various terms. Bretonbanquet 23:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify the diffrence btween an exclusion and a ban.--Lucy-marie 00:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

An exclusion is a disqualification from the race before the race has started, usually during practice or qualifying, often for missing a weight check, baulking another driver or something like that. They're very rare now, due to small grids etc - but in the 70s and 80s they were common. An excluded driver cannot be replaced by a reserve driver.

A ban is a removal of a driver from the entry list before an event has even convened, often as punishment for a serious infringement of the rules during the previous race, or a technical infringement (or cheating) by the team, like BAR's oversized fuel tank a couple of years back. If the team is banned then obviously they don't even turn up for the race - if a driver is banned for one or more races, he is usually replaced by another driver while the ban is in force. If we don't differentiate between bans and exclusions, then it's a sad situation. Bretonbanquet 00:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a question, what does WD mean and where doed is fit on the table? -- AAFL 00:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a guess, but possible "withdrawn". Which driver/race did you see it on? – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 01:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I found it on Emerson Fittipaldi page for the 1970 Italian Grand Prix and the 1976 Japanese Grand Prix. What colour should they be? -- AAFL 06:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

For the 76 Japanese GP, all of those drivers (Fittipaldi, Pace, Lauda, Perkins) withdrew after completing laps for safety reasons ([1]), so it would be a DNF; for the 70 Italian GP, Lotus withdrew their cars prior to qualifying due to Rindt's fatal accident ([2]) - so either DNS or DNQ (although DNQ is a bit misleading as they did not even attempt to qualify) – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 08:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So what colour should they both be? Purple for the 76 Japanese GP & white for the 70 Italian GP? And what colour should i do for SHR. Karl Kling and others in the 1955 Argentine Grand Prix -- AAFL 00:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, lets weigh into this one too shall I... Just recently I could really have used something to indicate that a driver turned up at a Grand Prix, practiced, but then didn't bother to qualify, similar to the Lotus situation above (in Chris Amon's case because his car was taken over by the team #1 driver). It seems harsh to give him a DNQ, as he didn't fail to qualify, he just never tried. Similarly DNS indicates that he qualified but didn't take the start for whatever reason, and this is inaccurate. Obviously DNF is way out, as to fail to finish you first have to start... TD only applied post-2003. So how about adding "PO" for "practice only" to the TD box? PO to be used pre-2003, and TD after. Thoughts? Pyrope 12:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable - I support it.--Diniz 16:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am also in favour of something like this - similarly there are situations where a driver was injured in Friday practice or on Saturday morning and was unable to take part in qualifying. For example Ricardo Rosset at the 1998 German Grand Prix. It seems harsh to put "DNQ" in these cases too, particularly in his case since the poor guy had enough DNQs anyway... The only problem might be that we'd be diverging from the official records - if the FIA count it as a DNQ, then that's probably what we should put. Bretonbanquet 17:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair point re. the official results. However, just to stick with my Chris Amon example, I have found his 1963 Monaco Grand Prix entry shown in a number of ways from various different sources. Some completely ignore this race, as if he was never there, some show him as DNS, others DNQ, and I even found one that showed him as DNPQ, even though I am pretty sure that there was no pre qualifying in that race. I think that we have the opportunity here to establish our own standards. Pyrope 09:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, no I am not suggesting that all codes for missed races be removed - that's ridiculous. I am only talking about injuries and illnesses. Missing a race through a ban is not an exclusion, hence not "EX". A ban means you have no entry for that race, so you're not involved at all. An exclusion is being disqualified from a race before it has started, usually for infringements during qualifying. If a driver is banned it should be explained in the article body, and I don't think there's scope for explaining that in the table. Secondly, can we get away from the DNP meaning "Did not participate"? We've been through this before.

WD isn't really consistent with the table at all, and I don't think it should be included. A withdrawal is just a reason for a DNS / DNQ etc, and the table should just state the outcome not the reason. We don't list reasons for retirement, so why list reasons for not starting? A withdrawal can always be explained adequately for the purposes of the table by either DNP (to mean "did not practice"), DNS or DNQ. Also, in cases where all cars entered are assured of a place on the grid, i.e. no cars are deemed to be too slow to have qualified, then a withdrawal should be represented by a DNS not a DNQ. We are in danger of making the tables too complicated and thus inconsistent - they're just simple stats. Bretonbanquet 22:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I never suggested using the letters "DNP" for "Did not participate" again. However, I do think that it would be nice if Template:F1 driver results legend 2 had an entry explaining that "blank" races mean that the driver wasn't there (for whatever reason, with codes below it for specific reasons), just like in Template:F1 driver results legend. Majin Izlude ^talk 16:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What colour for DNPQ? That was Aguri Suzuki's results for the entire 1989 Formula One season —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AAFL (talk • contribs) 08:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

DNPQ is red, same as DNQ. Bretonbanquet 17:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I am now doing Mike Hawthorn's complete F1 results, and he had a couple of shared drives in 1954. How do i put that in? -- AAFL 10:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say put asterisks next to the shared drive results, and add a footnote below the table.--Diniz 16:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good. I'll amend Peter Collins with that in mind. Pyrope 20:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is the color for a driver who ends up not classified blue? Shouldn't it be purple since a NC is usually considered the same as a ret. If it is blue it looks like we are inflating the driver's finishing record. — Chris | Talk 18:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. I'll second that. Pyrope 20:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Because a non-classification is absolutely not the same as a retirement. If a driver took the chequered flag but did not retire, that is not a retirement. It doesn't inflate the driver's finishing record because it clearly states "NC" meaning non-classified finish. I don't really bother with all this any more but I think it would be a further inconsistency if NC finishes were coloured purple. Bretonbanquet 12:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Colour-coded Backgrounds

1977 Austrian Grand Prix

Pos	No	Driver	Team	Laps	Time/Retired	Grid	Points
1	17	Alan Jones	Shadow-Ford	54	1'37:16.49	14	9
2	11	Niki Lauda	Ferrari	54	+20.13 secs	1	6
3	8	Hans Joachim Stuck	Brabham-Alfa Romeo	54	+34.5 secs	4	4
4	12	Carlos Reutemann	Ferrari	54	+34.75 secs	5	3
5	3	Ronnie Peterson	Tyrrell-Ford	54	+72.09 secs	15	2
6	2	Jochen Mass	McLaren-Ford	53	+1 lap	9	1
7	24	Rupert Keegan	Hesketh-Ford	53	+1 lap	20
8	7	John Watson	Brabham-Alfa Romeo	53	+1 lap	12
9	27	Patrick Neve	March-Ford	53	+1 lap	22
10	30	Brett Lunger	McLaren-Ford	53	+1 lap	17
Ret	20	Jody Scheckter	Wolf-Ford	45	Spun Off	8
Ret	1	James Hunt	McLaren-Ford	43	Engine	2
DNQ	38	Brian Henton	March-Ford

and so on.

what do you think about doing this for all races? AAFL

First, let's keep the code as simple as possible:

Pos	No	Driver	Team	Laps	Time/Retired	Grid	Points
1	17	Alan Jones	Shadow-Ford	54	1'37:16.49	14	9
2	11	Niki Lauda	Ferrari	54	+20.13 secs	1	6
3	8	Hans Joachim Stuck	Brabham-Alfa Romeo	54	+34.5 secs	4	4
4	12	Carlos Reutemann	Ferrari	54	+34.75 secs	5	3
5	3	Ronnie Peterson	Tyrrell-Ford	54	+72.09 secs	15	2
6	2	Jochen Mass	McLaren-Ford	53	+1 lap	9	1
7	24	Rupert Keegan	Hesketh-Ford	53	+1 lap	20
8	7	John Watson	Brabham-Alfa Romeo	53	+1 lap	12
9	27	Patrick Neve	March-Ford	53	+1 lap	22
10	30	Brett Lunger	McLaren-Ford	53	+1 lap	17
Ret	20	Jody Scheckter	Wolf-Ford	45	Spun Off	8
Ret	1	James Hunt	McLaren-Ford	43	Engine	2
DNQ	38	Brian Henton	March-Ford

Second, I don't like it, and I'd prefer not to implement it. As the drivers (most often) are listed in the same order as they finished (gold, silver, bronze, green, blue etc.) the colors doesn't add any extra information to this table. In other tables, such as 2006 Formula One season#Drivers, the colors are actually helpful (try, for example, to figure out how Rosberg got his 4 points, or why Ide was better than Yamamoto is ;-) Anyway, that's just my two cents. --Fred Bradstadt 13:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with fred. It adds nothing but colours, no extra information is seen at a glance, unlike in the driver's tables. -slowpokeiv 02:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for simpliflying the code. i knew there was a way, but just diddnt know how.

What do you think of just doing it for the top 3, just to highlight it's importance? -- AAFL 00:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way - that's the wrong flag for Jody Scheckter - he stopped racing in 1980 and that flag didn't exist until about 1994. The correct one is

AAFL, I'd prefer not to add colors, even just for top 3. Same reasons as above. --Fred Bradstadt 18:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Fastest Laps

I was wondering if fastest laps could be included in the drivers' (and constructors', chassis' etc.) career results tables, as in, for example, the 1998 Formula 3000 season article, i.e. in italics? It can be used in conjunction with bold pole positions, as bold italics just needs five apostrophes either side of the text (although it took me rather too long to figure it out).--Diniz 12:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Race Report Pages

Infobox

Two questions: 1) Why isn't the Race Report infobox used on the example race report? 2) If the infobox is used, should the fastest lap still be included under the Notes header as it's already included in the infobox? Alexj2002 18:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Lap Leader table

I was thinking some kind of lap leader table would work well in a race report. I'm not good at doing these Wikitables but attempted one.

Lap Leaders
Start - Lap 50	Lap 51 - Finish
Mika Häkkinen	Michael Schumacher

Now I know it looks rubbish, but I think the idea is good and if someone could do a proper one it'd be interesting to hear what others think of the idea. The width's of the cells in the above example are proportional to the amount of laps the lead was held for, I don't know if this aspect of it is going to work. Alexj2002 08:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at {{Complete timeline of Macintosh models}}. I can't understand the coding for the life of me, but if you can work it out and condense it down to what would actually be needed, that kind of system could be good (although not using a template, as there'd be too many)... – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 09:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Lap Chart

Would this type of lap chart be suitable for the race reports?

1999 San Marino Grand Prix

(Diniz's example lap chart of 10 October 2006 - Archived due to space/size concerns. Pyrope 14:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

What do you think?--Diniz 18:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...Looks a bit big...Am I thinking correctly when I say that this will be on a seperate page? --Skully Collins 14:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is a bit big. The problem is that the type becomes illegible if I make it smaller, which means that longer races won't, at present, fit within the screen width. I'll play around with the formatting a bit more to try and make it smaller.

I would prefer to have the lap chart on the same page as the race report, but having it on a separate page would be fine, too.--Diniz 15:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I can make it slightly narrower, but the depth of the table will have to be reduced by someone who knows the formatting codes, as the height of each row is currently on the 'default' setting.

(Diniz's example lap chart of 12 October 2006 - Archived due to space/size concerns. Pyrope 14:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

--Diniz 15:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

For some reason during the course of day, all the wikitables and infoboxes have become sqaushed. This solves the problem of making the lap chart smaller, but it will be annoying to get used to!--Diniz 17:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Back to normal now - oh well. If no-one has any objections, I'll put this lap chart in the 1999 San Marino Grand Prix article and start making others.--Diniz 10:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

WDC/WCC Classification with Zero Points?

Are drivers and teams classified in the WDC/WCC at the end of the season if they simply finish a race, or must they score at least one point? F1 TV graphics (which list zero-point drivers and teams according to the standard tiebreaker) and most of the recent season articles here (such as 2000 Formula One season) suggest the former, while the archives on formula1.com (such as this for 2000) and 1998 Formula One season suggest the latter. I have doubts about formula1.com, though; the 2006 WDC standings page there claims that de la Rosa and Coulthard are tied for 11th! --Majin Izlude 15:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

F1.com is apparently infamous for the number of errors it has; I'm pretty sure the usual rule applies, and you must be classified (90% distance or whatever) in at least one race to be classified in the C'ship. Poor Anthony Davidson was not classified last year as he only raced once and retired, whilst Rob Doornbos, also on zero, finished 6 races and was thus classified. I can't find it on FIA.com, but I'd imagine it would be the same for Davidson in 2002, when he raced twice and retired twice. FIA.com is generally more accurate than most sites I've found. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 21:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The TV graphics seem to show that, indeed, one classification=total classification. For example, Yamamoto just appeared last race, and there are several drivers that appear with 0 points. Bduddy 04:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought that too, i.e. a classification in at least one race equals a classification in the WDC standings - I'm sure it does now, but I'm not sure it was always that way. I also don't see how anyone can be tied in the WDC - there's (almost) always a way to put one driver above another. I always find www.forix.com to be very accurate. More accurate than the "official" site anyway. Bretonbanquet 00:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

All WDC(and WCC) ties are, I believe, resolved in the same way as the top spot: most wins, then most seconds, then most thirds, etc... I'm not totally sure about this, but I think the TV graphics, at least, reflect this. Bduddy 04:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Jim Clark and Colin Chapman Cups (1987)

Would it be worth doing something about this in the 1987 Season article? (For those of you who don't know, these were the trophies for the winning normally-aspirated driver and constructor in 1987, as part of FISA's move away from, and eventual banning of, turbos). --Diniz 17:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Motorsport Wiki

If anyone is interested, there is a dedicated [Motorsport Wiki] currently under development. Any contributions from wikipedians is very much apreciated! MonkeyMumford 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher

Obviously this article is getting a fair bit of "attention" as it has been on the Main Page for the last couple of days, but I think once the hype has died down it is a prime candidate for some kind of collaboration to get it to FA status. But before that happens, the opening paragraph has to be sorted out, specifically, how Schumi is referred to in terms of his achievements in the sport. A debate has been going on for a while on the talk page, just thought I'd bring it to the attention of project members who haven't been following/watching it if you want to put in your $0.02. Cheers – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 07:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Kimi Raikkonen

I just tried to edit this page to replace the very detailed race-by-race descriptions of the 2003-2005 seasons, but my changes were reverted to the longer ones, with the argument that "consistency between F1 biographies is not a good reason to remove such an amount of valid information - the page is not that long and race-by-race summaries are of interest".

I don't particularly want to annoy the user who reverted my changes, and I don't want to claim that what I wrote was perfect, but I don't think that an overall biography of a driver needs all that detail (and besides, it's available on the race pages if you really want it). Most other drivers seem to have fairly short season summaries, except for the current season. Is there any kind of consensus on the appropriate level of detail to be contained within these summaries? Lidz 18:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean take FA Damon Hill as an example. That article doesn't mention a race-by-race paragraph like Raikkonen's article does. I think it's because it just gets booring after a while and when Kimi retires, in like 7-10 year, something like that, god knows how long the article will be if it's written as it is now.--Skully Collins 11:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Spyker MF1 Racing

Should a new article created for this team, or should the Midland F1 Racing article be continued? My understanding is that it is a separate team, and the "MF1" would be dropped if that did not contravene the Concorde Agreement. --Diniz 13:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now changed the name of the article to Spyker MF1 Team, which is the official name given on the FIA website, and all the press releases given by the team. Manipe 19:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Circuit Coordinates

I am adding and revising the 2006 season circuit coordinates, using the WGS84 coordinate system, to allow using the Map Sources feature for all of them. I suggest to include this header in the layout for all racing circuits as they are obvious landmarks.

Another suggestion would be to use the inner side of the start/finish line as the point whose coordinates are given. This way we can avoid the errors introduced by referencing an arbitrary point anywhere in the circuit premises. For straight tracks like drag strips, that do not have an inner side, I would suggest to use the right side of the start/finish line, in the direction of racing.

I will wait for comments on this before including this requirement in the circuit layout. I recommend you to use the Map Sources experimental feature before taking a position on this: it rocks!

I will correct later all the coordinates for F1 circuits, not included in the 2006 season.--Ciroa 14:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Mass Damper Article

It has come to my attention that articles such as the 2006 Serie A scandal cover subjects of contraversy. I was hoping that this project could create a similar article for this years Mass Damper issue, as it's caused much contraversy in F1, such as the question as to "Why it was banned mid-way through the season?". Sorry, just thought it would be a "fun" article to do.--Skully Collins 08:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeh absolutely, I think there should be more articles like this on F1. There is an article on this in buildings - Tuned mass damper (this is the same name the FIA referred to it as in their press released IIRC) - we will have to decide whether the application in the Renault deserves its own article, or just to be integrated into that one, like ground effect. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 01:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

1994 San Marino Grand Prix: Featured Article Candidate

I think this is now good enough to go for FA status. If anyone who hasn't worked on the article is willing to review it, I'd be grateful. Alexj2002 18:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

1951 French Grand Prix

Luigi Fagioli is shown to have won the 1951 French Grand Prix, but the offical formula 1 website says he came 11th. http://www.formula1.com/archive/driver/detail/1951/266/117.html

Can someone please explain how he got 4 points for comming 11th? i was updating his F1 results table but i dont know what to do now. -- AAFL 05:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Check this. Fangio retired early in the race, and took over Fagioli's car at a pitstop. Under the points system, a win was worth 8 points, split evenly between Fangio and Fagioli; Fangio got an extra point for setting the fastest lap. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 06:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Talbot

Talbot's page states, in the F1 section, only that it participated in the early eighties. This is obviously untrue: for example, in the 1951 Belgian Grand Prix, they entered seven cars. Can someone with more expertise in this area edit the Talbot article to reflect this? Bduddy 03:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

2005 United States Grand Prix

I have put this up for Peer Review (as I think this article is close to Featured Article Status) click here if you want to add any comments. Kingjamie 17:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have put it up for FAC as I think the article is FA class comments here please .Kingjamie 19:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Results being changed

What's with the massive number of fairly minor changes being made to race results by 222.225.117.108? MOstly things like changing 'collision' to 'accident', or 'spun off' to 'accident'. ANyone know?

Nope. Although I can't see the point of those edits myself, because all the editor is doing is just making the drivers' reason for retiring more vague compared to the version prior to his/her edit.--Skully Collins 13:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

He's also in some cases introducing changes to final position or to the actual cause (accident to engine, for example). Usually changes to the minor placings, so they won't be immediately obvious. This is vandalism - similar changes are being made right now by 220.221.17.213 - presumably the same person - and they are very similar to a weird set of edits a week or two back by user:Williambodie (see his [history] and [page].

Could everyone keep an eye on similar edits to F1 race reports and reverse them where appropriate? Cheers --4u1e 08:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

ING sponsors Renault F1

Press release: [3]

I think it's a little early to change the name to ING Renault F1 Team now, but it will become the official name at the beginning of the 2007 Championship. Please change accordingly at that time. 145.221.24.8 13:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC) (=nl:Gebruiker:IIVQ, and I work for ING.)

I don't think it's conventional to change article names according to sponsors. After all, the article isn't called Mild Seven Renault F1 Team at present, and ING haven't bought Renault, as, say, Spyker bought Midland.--Diniz 18:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't change for a title sponsor - otherwise we'd have to change all the time, and what do you list teams as historically? It's different when the actual name of the team changes when it's bought by someone (i.e. Toleman > Benetton > Renault). 4u1e

I agree with last two edits. It's perfectly acceptable to have "ING Renualt F1 Team" or "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes" as the intro and infobox names, but changing article names is not. Not only would it require several changes per year for F1 articles, it would also go against the MOS (use simplest/most common name). Mark83 23:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox: points?

I don't know if this is been discussed before, but would it be a good idea to add how many points a driver scored to the infobox?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Klein (talk • contribs)

Good point. Although we're talking about a change that could involve editing over 700 articles! But yes, I do agree that it would be a good addition to the Driver's infobox.--Skully Collins 14:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean points in the current season or career points? I'm not disagreeing, I just want to raise the points that for a current season tally that would require a lot of updating (e.g. 22 drivers X 18 races). A career tally would require updating as well as being a skewed number - i.e. according to the length of a driver's career. Mark83 23:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about career overall points, because it gives a much better indication of what succes a driver had. For instance somebody like Tarso Marques had 0 wins and podiums, but so did Christian Klien. While Klien was not all that succesfull, he was considerably more succesfull than Marques. I hope you see the point I'm making ;-). And it will be 8 drivers x 18 races because only eight drivers score points. Paul Klein

I would agree with the idea of adding points, career and season, to the infobox. Yes, it would be about 160 changes per year compared to about 60, and would mean 700 articles to update, but it could be hidden until filled in. (the #ifeq: can be a good template, see Template:Infobox NASCAR driver for examples) As far as being skewed, well, yes, but no more so than wins, poles, fast laps, etc... -slowpokeiv 18:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that career points should be included in the infobox.--Diniz 12:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, total points are important in a career summary. As useful rule-of-thumb regarding a driver's career is his points:GPs ratio: >1 significant driver; 0.5-1 so-so; <0.5 nobody. Pyrope 10:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Interestingly, as a measure of how surprisingly accurate this method is, Michael Andretti only just creeps over the 0.5 threshold. Although I am sure someone will find an exception... go on. Pyrope 10:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't write like a Racing Magazine

Just deleted some lines from the McLaren article along the lines of 'Raikkonen must have been disappointed...' and 'Both drivers will be hoping however that the car they are given is somewhat better...'. While these might make the article nicer to read, it's still speculation. We're an encyclopedia, not a Racing Magazine, and we probably shouldn't be writing like one. If we have quotes from the drivers about their feelings about something, we should quote them, not write in speculation over what they are. --Barberio 12:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The majority of people who read this WP F1 talk page are aware of the style required, it's getting the message across to others that edit F1 articles that's the problem. Alexj2002 23:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

1994 San Marino Grand Prix

After much hard work by Alexj2002 and others, 1994 San Marino Grand Prix is now on the Featured Article Candidates list - most of the objections have been dealt with, but there's a bit of a lack of people supporting it. If you feel that the article is of Featured Article standard, please visit its discussion page and show your support. Cheers. --4u1e 13:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As well as that, please can you people show your support for Alain Prost getting to featured article status as well, please? Thanks. Oh and 4u1e, I've already shown my support for Imola '94 ;-) --Skully Collins 13:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Who's this?

Can anyone help identify the Renault team member in this image (not Alonso!)? Cheers guys. Alexj2002 09:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My bet would be Pat Symonds because prior to the photo, there was the traditional champagne (sp?) spraying. I don't know, I'll have a closer look soon, unless someone can put a name to the face ;-).--S kully Collins ^Edits 14:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Other logical guesses include:

Alonso's race engineer, Rod Nelson
Fisichella's race engineer, Alan Permane
Or perhaps Steve Nielson, a Renault Race Engineer during the 2005 season.

Although these are only guesses, my bet out of these three would be Rod Nelson, because why would Renault have Permane up there and also, Nielson has much more shorter hair then that...--S kully Collins ^Edits 16:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that's Rob White, Renault's Engine Technical Director. Manipe 19:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah definately looks like Rob White ([4]) - thanks guys! Alexj2002 15:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)