Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42→Archive 45

Pitstops in race report results tables

Someone has added a pitstop column to this race report [1]. It's late and I'm going to bed, so I can't be bothered to go and find out if this was something people agreed to or not. Thought I'd bring it here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, no. Stats creep if ever I've saw it, we really don't need things like that. QueenCake (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I see no purpose to adding pit stops to race reports. They would not add anything to the reports. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Consensus was achieved previously to not do this. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 38#Pit Stops in tables --Falcadore (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. That's the end of that. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I even commented in that discussion. Can't remember it at all, but at least I agree with myself. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Heh, at least you don't look back and wonder what on earth you were on about... ;) QueenCake (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

TD in results tables

In the driver's results tables it has the letters TD when they participated in Free Practices. With this change on the season articles being made with just FP drivers in the last column, it is now inconsistent, meaning that we may need to change all of the driver result tables. What do you think? SAS1998―Talk 17:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a courtesy message to inform the members of this project that I have nominated Portal:Sports for featured portal status. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports. The featured portal criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Please feel free to weigh in. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

GP name issue

Hello everyone... I have stupid issue so please help. I am editing Croatian pages about F1 and came to strange GP naming - Detroit GP, Dallas GP, Caesars Palace GP... And than I started to investigate the problem and realized that on official Formula 1 site, this GP's doesn't exist, they are in fact: USA EAST GP, US GP and LAS VEGAS GP.
Here is what I discovered:
Caesars Palace GP named on wiki, but on F1 is Las Vegas GP [1][2]
Detroit GP named on wiki, but on F1 is USA east GP [3][4][5][6] US GP [7][8][9]
Dallas GP named on wiki, but on F1 is US GP[10]

  1. ^ http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1981/>
  2. ^ http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1982/
  3. ^ http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1982/
  4. ^ http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1984/
  5. ^ http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1985/
  6. ^ http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1986/
  7. ^ http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1983/
  8. ^ http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1987/
  9. ^ http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1988/
  10. ^ http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1984/


Can I replace the naming with the official one when I will be updating the pages? Andycro (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No. Different sources refer to the races by different names. The names used on www.formula1.com aren't necessarily the "official" names. The current names reflect the WikiProject consensus - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Archive_10#Naming_of_F1_races_held_in_the_USA and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Archive_18#United_States_Grands_Prix. DH85868993 (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Thx DH85868993 for info, you were a big help :)Andycro (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
No worries. Thank you for asking first, rather than just going ahead and making changes. DH85868993 (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

GrandPrix+ nominated for deletion

FYI, I've nominated the article for GrandPrix+ (Saward's online magazine) for deletion. Please leave any comments at the discussion page. Muchas gracias. QueenCake (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've put another one, Badger GP, which I've honestly never heard of before today, up for deletion as well. Again, if you've got any comments stick them on the discussion page. QueenCake (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

IP waving flags

An IP has been adding copious amounts of flaggage to F1 team infoboxes [2] – as far as I was aware, we don't have flags in these infoboxes, but I thought I'd check here first. He/she has made some decent edits too, incidentally. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, kill it with fire. Only drivers and constructors/teams are representing a nationality in the sport. No one else needs a flag.
The documented convention is to have flags for drivers only. DH85868993 (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Dubious list

Some of you may be interested in (or horrified by) this: List of achievements by Ayrton Senna. Is this something that should exist? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

So is this fine or what do we do when someone writes one for Schumi or Fangio? Frankly this is the kind of hagiography I've been afraid of for a while and I didn't think it was the business we were in. Britmax (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree, I think it should be nipped in the bud before similar lists appear for Vettel, Hamilton and all the rest of them. Some of those "achievements" are incredibly obscure. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't like it, but it's better in its own article than cluttering up the driver article. If someone can be bothered to set them up, if the information's properly sourced, why shouldn't there be one for every driver? Gives a reason for automatically removing cruft from elsewhere. --Ian Dalziel (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
A quick read-through tells me that it does need a good clean-up; and some things such as 26th all time in career starts is going to need to be updated somewhat frequently. I have improved it so the terms used are not too dodgy. One argument is to say that other sports (such as Tennis and Cricket) use these sort of pages too (this argument, however, may violate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), and since some of the information is notable, then why not? I feel, however, that it is too in-depth. Is the number of times he has lead the most laps of all drivers in a season notable, for example. I don't think so. I think it is appropriate for the F1 Wiki I am admin of, but not here. —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this is appropriate for a general purpose encyclopedia and will undoubtedly lead to the creation of similar articles for other drivers. DH85868993 (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
What qualifies a driver to get their own page of achievements? There's no way this could ever work. Just add the most important achievements to Senna's page. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. What makes Senna eligible and not any other world champion, or race winner, or any other driver? We could end up with dozens of these, which nobody wants to update. If any of this stuff is worth having on Wikipedia, it should be in the driver's article. If it's not important enough for that, then it's not important at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep the important stuff on Senna's page - easier to stop it growing like the proverbial if it's there. 4u1e (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Formula One race reports

Category:Formula One race reports, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Formula One races. The nomination also proposes a similar renaming for the 64 subcategories: YYYY Formula One race reports → YYYY Formula One races.

If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This change has now occurred. Note that Category:2000 Formula One race reports was accidentally omitted from the CfD, so I have requested that it be speedily renamed to bring it into line with all the other categories. DH85868993 (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Season article importance scale

Hello folks. Just noticed that we have a blank row in our Importance Scale guidelines relating to season articles. I'm wondering whether we want to populate this or not. If so, I propose the following:

  • Top: 1950 Formula One season and current season only. I think in the context of F1 there are very few seasons that are crucial for a novice to understand. This should be a very limited category.
  • High: Seasons following major rule changes (e.g. 1952, 1954, 1961, 1966, 1989, 2006, 2014 eventually...), important for telling the story of an evolving sport.
  • Mid: Those seasons where, for some reason, the entire season (and not just an incident or two) was notable. Major events that affected the season as a whole (e.g. 1970, Rindt's posthumous championship; 1994, Senna's death and safety response; 1958, introduction of the WCC) are the key, not just that something important happened that year. These seasons add some meat to the skeleton that the 'major changes' seasons have formed.
  • Low: The vast majority of normal seasons, should be by far the largest group.

Anyway, if anyone has a burning desire to be heard let it be now. Of course, as I intimated above, I am perfectly happy for this line to be struck entirely and leave all season articles up for individual discussion, but I find that without some structure the importance ratings do tend to creep upward over time. Pyrope 22:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfair on who? Some seasons are (in my opinion) clearly more important than others. I broadly agree with Pyrope's comments, except that I'd say 1994 might be "high". Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
'Unfair' is an odd choice of words; I'm sure that none of them mind. Remember that we aren't talking about how important the season was, we are talking about how important the article is for an uninitiated reader if they want to get a good understanding of the topic. A few seasons are certainly more important than others in that context (i.e. Top and Mid), and many can be safely ignored completely until someone has a very thorough grasp on the sport's history (i.e. Low). Pyrope 23:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Saying that all seasons are equally important to understand the sport is foolish. This proposal seems logical. GeoJoe1000 (talk)12:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems fair. Provided 1982 can have a high rating. :) 4u1e (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds decent to me SAS1998―Talk 19:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Request peer review of 2004 Belgian Grand Prix

I have slaved away at this article for two days. I need a second opinion on it. Spa-Franks (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Phantom entries

Hi, I'm currently undertaking the mammoth (and possibly foolhardy) task of standardising race reports. So far I've done 3. Only 878 to go! Anyway, I've come across the 1950 Swiss Grand Prix, which has an "entry list" table as well as the qualifying and race classification tables. However, in the entry list table are 4 drivers who didn't even attempt to qualify - Peter Whitehead, Franco Rol, Reg Parnell and Rudi Fischer. This race isn't counted as an entry on any of their own pages, however on Parnell's and Fischer's, there's a "DNA", presumably standing for "did not attend". There's no source for the entry list, and the only other entry list I've found (on Chicane F1) doesn't have those 4 drivers. So basically I'm asking what we do to clarify it - do we remove them from the entry list, find the source that User:Piniricc65 used to add the table in April 2006, or just add DNA to the other two drivers' pages (for consistency)? Also in that case we should probably add them to the qualifying classification table as DNAs. Allypap81 (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Full and accurate entry lists are difficult to find. Many sources just flat-out get it wrong. Many other sources don't feel the need to mention drivers who entered but did not run for whatever reason. All those four drivers were entered for this race; I don't know what happened to Parnell and Fischer, but Rol was injured in the previous race, and was not fit. Whitehead was waiting for his car to be fitted with a new engine, and it wasn't ready in time. I'd say all were DNAs. The race report articles are sometimes more detailed than the driver articles, so some DNAs are not shown in the driver's results tables. They probably should be. I'll try and find out what happened to Parnell and Fischer. Here's a source in the meantime – silhouet is a good source [3]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Another good source: [4] Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Fischer's SVA car was apparently unfit to race. He'd entered it for three F1 races, starting with the 1950 San Remo Grand Prix where it died on the first lap, and he didn't bother with the other two F1 races he'd entered, including the Swiss GP. I don't know why Parnell missed this race, but he turned up later in the season with the same Maserati. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Rightyo, I'll add the DNAs into the classification then, and thanks for those sources, I'll use them to check subsequent reports. Allypap81 (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I've been working on that job intermittently for over a year, concentrating on a decent lead and transposing Notes into sentences. Perhaps we should co-ordinate to avoid double-handling? --Falcadore (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure, "intermittently" is a perfect way to describe my work as well! I've basically just started from the start, I'm in about mid-1951 at the mo. I'm probably taking longer than it actually takes, but I'm quite enjoying reading around the stuff as well, it's really interesting! Allypap81 (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian Grand Prix

Has anyone noticed that the Hungarian Grand Prix article does not have a lead? --Falcadore (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added one. It could probably use improvement, but at least there's one there now. DH85868993 (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Formula One magazines nominated for deletion

FYI, Category:Formula One magazines has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sauber/BMW Sauber

I posted this on the Sauber talk page a month ago but decided to put it here as well (in a slightly modified form) to get some opinions:

While the Sauber article claims that the team changed its name to BMW Sauber before the 2006 season, the information on F1.com (see links) does not match this claim. The 2006 constructors' championship standings display the team as Sauber-BMW, meaning that the constructor name was still Sauber at that point, while BMW engines were used. For the 2007 season, the constructor name has become just BMW, with no mention of the Sauber name at all. This becomes BMW Sauber in 2008 and the same name is used in 2009. What happens after that is mentioned in the article, as the team continues to be known as BMW Sauber in 2010, in spite of BMW's withdrawal.

While teams and constructors are distinct entities (although not to the same extent as a few decades ago), taking these changes into account is important, at least in the constructors' championship tables each season (the constructor is currently listed as BMW Sauber in the 2006 and 2007 season articles).

There are also similar cases with some other constructors. The constructor previously listed as RBR-Renault became Red Bull Racing-Renault in the F1.com championship standings as well as TV graphics in 2011 (the only difference is that F1.com uses a hyphen unlike the TV graphics). Super Aguri Honda was sometimes listed as just Aguri Honda in the TV graphics although this variation is not used on F1.com. YuckieDuck (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Formula1.com has something of a reputation round here for having incorrect information in the results pages, though I'm surprised to see errors in seasons that recent. I always thought they inherited an old database and never bothered checking it, but it appears they've made a few mistakes while the site has been up as well. Rest assured, the constructor was known as BMW Sauber from 2006-2009 (and BMW Sauber-Ferrari in 2010), Red Bull have always been Red Bull-Renault, and Super Aguri as Super Aguri-Honda. There's sources from the FIA (which supersedes F1.com in officialness) and plenty of other reliable publications if there are any problems. QueenCake (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Splitting Ferrari articles

I propose that we split Ferrari 412T into Ferrari 412T1 and Ferrari 412T2, and Ferrari F310 into Ferrari F310 and Ferrari F310B. Although it is standard practice here to include evolutions of the same car within a single article, I believe that in these two cases the second-named car is an evolution in name only, and the current "combined" articles are a potential source of confusion, given that all the cars are usually treated as separate entities elsewhere.—Midgrid(talk) 20:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

After looking into the respective articles, I feel that the Ferrari 412T article should remain the same as the article is rather short itself. Nevertheless, the same cannot be said for the Ferrari 310 article, which is worth looking into. L. Zheng Wei (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Request assistance with article table

Hello everyone this is my first day, and I've just finished an article on the BRM P48/57 and the car information table is showing up as text code. I followed the infobox: racingcar template, and I cannot for the life of my figure out what I've done wrong. Thanks in advance. Whatisdeletrazdoing (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed (there was a missing "]]"). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 05:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There is now an WP:IRC channel for collaboration between editors in various sports WikiProjects. It's located at #wikipedia-en-sports connect. Thanks Secret account 03:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Drivers and Constructors tables

An IP editor has been editing the "Drivers and Constructors" tables in numerous F1 season summary articles in an apparent attempt to minimise the number of times each driver appears in the table, e.g. in this edit to the 1991 article they have changed:

Entrant Constructor Chassis Engine Tyre No Driver Rounds
United Kingdom Footwork Grand Prix International Footwork-Porsche A11C
FA12 		Porsche 3512 3.5 V12 G 9 Italy Michele Alboreto 1-6
10 Italy Alex Caffi 1-4
Sweden Stefan Johansson 5-6
Footwork-Ford FA12C Ford Cosworth DFR 3.5 V8 9 Italy Michele Alboreto 7-16
10 Sweden Stefan Johansson 7-8
Italy Alex Caffi 9-16

to:

Entrant Constructor Chassis Engine Tyre No Driver Rounds
United Kingdom Footwork Grand Prix International Footwork-Porsche A11C
FA12 		Porsche 3512 3.5 V12 G 9 Italy Michele Alboreto 1-6
Footwork-Ford FA12C Ford Cosworth DFR 3.5 V8 7-16
Footwork-Porsche A11C
FA12 		Porsche 3512 3.5 V12 10 Italy Alex Caffi 1-4
Footwork-Ford FA12C Ford Cosworth DFR 3.5 V8 9-16
Footwork-Porsche A11C
FA12 		Porsche 3512 3.5 V12 Sweden Stefan Johansson 5-6
Footwork-Ford FA12C Ford Cosworth DFR 3.5 V8 7-8

Is this desirable? DH85868993 (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

So they want to minimise the amount of times the drivers appear, by increasing the amount of times the constructor and cars appear? Seems pointless, and actually makes the table rather untidy. I suggest reverting it all. QueenCake (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Test drivers

Hey, I'm wondering why the test drivers on the season pages have been removed. It's not the most important piece of information, but it's still relevant and I don't see how removing information from Wikipedia improves it. How am I going to know what test drivers a team had in a season now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.88 (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Archive_39#Test_and_Reserve_Drivers. DH85868993 (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
You read the individual team and driver pages to find out. Bear in mind, many so-called test drivers do little more than demo runs and media appearances anyway, leaving you with information of questionable worth. QueenCake (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

When to start an article on a future season?

As you may be aware, there's been quite a bit of discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2015_Formula_One_season about whether there is yet enough concrete information about the 2015 season to have an article about it. All but two of the seasons since 2007 have also been nominated for deletion at least once when the article was created some time in advance of the season's start (2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014). To save this happening again and again and again, editors have suggested that it would be helpful if WikiProject Formula One discussed some guidelines about how much information should be required and how concrete that information should be, before a new season's article is created. Some concrete examples that have come up, which might be a starting point for discussion but which certainly aren't intended as exhaustive or even necessary topics.

  1. Is it enough that Country X is planning a circuit with the hope of hosting a race in that year, or should we wait until the contract has been signed?
  2. Is it enough that Country X is contracted to hold a Grands Prix so they're expected to host one each year until the contract expires?
  3. Is it enough that Driver X signed a multi-year contract with Team Y, so they're expected to be racing with them until that contract expires?
  4. Is it enough that there are widely reported rumours that Team X will use engine supplier/sponsor Z in the season in question?

Over to you. Dricherby (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest these rough requirements: at least 5 to 10 contracted drivers, at least 10 to 15 contracted races, a major confirmed change, or the new season's set of rules and regulations. Not all will need to be fulfilled (there may not be a major change), but enough to make a few lists that appear on the season pages. —Gyaro–Maguus— 16:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
As an additional idea, would making a WP:F1 subpage on 2016 when there is some information be a good idea? Then there is a place where the information is and where it can be judged for how well it could fit into the encyclopedia. When everyone agrees that it has the "required amount of information" on it (this level to be discussed) it gets made into an article. Any thoughts? —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
An outside opinion: developing and storing a project subpage has been used successfully in the past, including some contested articles. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts, question by question:
1 - It is not enough to be 'planning' a race. There should be confirmation that the race will be going ahead, especially if it details of the plans for the race form a substantial part of the article. The way the 2015 article did.
2 - Yes, it is enough. When a race is first added to the calendar, it is expected that that event will at the very least remain on the calendar until the contract expires.
3 - Yes, it is enough. Contracts can be and are broken, but drivers sign contracts with the expectation that they will complete the term of the contract. Any early release is dependent on other factors (like Alonso leaving McLaren).
4 - No. Rumours are rumours, which means they are speculation. It doesn't matter how many times a rumour is repeated, or how strongly the source given implies it to be a fact with confirmation a mere formality - they have no business being on Wikipedia.
Honestly, I'm not sure why we're even having this discussion. This is the way we've always done things. I suspect the 2015 article has only been kept because a handful of editors with a history of consistently low-quality edits voted to keep it on the basis that it would be needed at some indeterminate point in the future. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
We're having this discussion because every F1 season's page is created and deleted multiple times, which is a waste of everyone's effort. If there are agreed guidelines for when a season's article should be created, at least we can avoid the repeated arguments. WikiProject Formula One is obviously the place to agree such guidelines but nobody's forcing you to take part if you don't want to.

Your suspicions about why the article was kept this time are completely wrong for the simple reason that AfD is not a majority vote. The article was kept because the closing administrator thought that the arguments given showed that the article is sufficiently compliant with Wikipedia policies. In this case, the admin left quite a detailed message about how they came to their decision. In theory, a single well-argued "keep" can overturn a hundred "deletes" that aren't based on policy (or vice-versa).

If contracted races are enough, I'm not sure why you think the 2015 article should have been deleted: the Monaco GP is contracted to be held until 2020, which you just said is enough to create every season article until then. Note that deletion should not be used as an alternative to page improvement: we shouldn't, in general, delete a page that should exist, just because the current version is bad. Also note that, if a rumour is widely reported, it can be notable and thus deserving of coverage in Wikipedia – the yeti is an obvious example. (Obviously, I'm not claiming that the alleged McLaren–Honda deal has anything like as much coverage as the yeti, just that there is a scale of notability of rumours.) Dricherby (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

In that case, please tell me why a proposed-but-unconfirmed Grand Prix, rumours of Honda's return, and changes to the engine allocations all received priority over a list of contracted races.
And while I agree that a widely-reported rumour might be notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia, I don't think the Honda rumours fit this description, given that they were being used to pad out the article, remain wholly unconfirmed, and given the fluid nature of Formula 1, are wholly inappropriate for the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, in terms of who and what is confirmed, we have Alonso and Hamilton for sure, with the races in Abu Dhabi, America, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Great Britain, China, Hungary, Italy, Korea, Malaysia, Monaco, Russia, Singapore, USA all confirmed according to references in the 2014 article (not to forget Germany and Spain, and I believe another country). Add in the rule change and there is a fair bit of information there in my eyes. —Gyaro–Maguus— 13:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
And I have no objections to that. What I'm asking is why people included rumours and speculation and an article that amounted to "we'd like to have a Grand Prix" before any other content was added to the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk)`
Versions of the page that included just lists of races and drivers that were still in-contract had been deleted previously, e.g., [5], [6]. Dricherby (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
And again, I find myself asking: why were these deleted, and why was priority given to rumours and rubbish? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe no-one really thought to include the drivers and races, and there were news sources on the rumours, so they were put in, I guess, and with nothing else to substantiate on the article the rumours remained. Anyway, this is going off the intended topic of the discussion. —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Lotus Racing nominated for deletion

Lotus Racing has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

And, unsurprisingly, it was a speedy keep. Dricherby (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Major Race Results" tables in circuit articles

There's a discussion in progress at WP:MOTOR about the inclusion of "Major Race Results" tables in racing circuit articles. The emerging consensus there is in favour of such tables. I note that this disagrees with an earlier consensus of this project that F1 winners lists should not be included in circuit articles. Anyone with views on the matter is welcome to contribute to the discussion at WP:MOTOR. DH85868993 (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 "Testgate" controversy

I think a separate article needs to be made on the 2013 Pirelli tire test controversy involving Mercedes, Red Bull and Ferrari. Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

At the moment it is not anything. It is just a protest, of which hundreds are lodged every year. There is nothing in the issue at the moment of sufficient importance to justify an article outside of regular season coverage. There has not even been a penalty.
If however you would like to write about on-going news coverage of evolving events then Wikimedia has a great place in which you can do that and it is here --Falcadore (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Team X F1 driver categories

What's the score with regard to who is included in these categories? Right now we have DNQers and DNSers but not all Friday testers. Some categories include drivers who raced for, and others say drove for. Was there a consensus or is it just the typical jumble? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I suspect it's the typical jumble. But maybe ask User:Kingjamie who created/populated many of the more recent categories. DH85868993 (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Probably should not include Friday testers as they were never supposed to start a race, so calling them race drivers is a bit disengenious. I certainly wouldnt call Chanoch Nissany a Miniardi F1 driver. --Falcadore (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, technically he drove a Minardi at an F1 event (if you call what he did "driving"), and the category is "Minardi F1 drivers", not "race drivers". Either we need to change the name of the category, be inclusive, or formulate some kind of wording to use across the categories to explain why some drivers are included and some aren't. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Category:Minardi Formula One drivers description - Formula One drivers who have raced in Italian team Minardi from 1985 to 2005. No test drivers obviously. --Borowskki (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The category is Minardi F1 drivers, not Minardi F1 race drivers. The wording does not agree with the category title. Why is Tino Brambilla in the Ferrari category? Why is Stephen South in the McLaren category? Neither raced. As I've said, some categories like Honda and Jordan just say driven. This isn't just about Minardi, obviously. I'm aiming to standardise the whole range of categories, rather than leave it as the current dog's dinner. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
"The category is Minardi F1 drivers" Which says to me "drivers with an F1 start", not "drivers who were a peripheral part of an F1 team". (I know, the race pages have included everybody who shows up. I think that's pretty stupid, too.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a reason why practice sessions and qualifying sessions are treated differently you know. One affects the outcome of the race, one does not. If they were serious entries, they'd have their own car, not sharing it with someone who actually did start the race. --Falcadore (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
List of Formula One drivers also only includes drivers who raced at a GP event and it made FL.--Sporti (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and these categories are not the same thing, and "Minardi F1 drivers" will mean different things to different people, hence my original post. The media (for instance) call test drivers "F1 drivers", whereas we generally do not. Never mind, almost everyone here is missing the point. People want to include DNQers and DNSers yet keep the tagline "drivers who raced for Team X in F1". Some DNQ/Sers did even less than the Friday testers; the entry list is being given way too much emphasis here. Anyway, I suggest a tagline on the category pages along the lines of "This category includes drivers entered by Team X for Formula One Grands Prix" with a note to say that test drivers are excluded. Removing the word "raced" removes a multitude of problems. The other two problems are: 1) whether to include non-Championship F1 or not (in which case the category names have to be changed to include "World Championship"), and 2) whether to just include "works" drivers, or add customer drivers as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
In regard to your second question, the categories should only contain "works" drivers, noting that they are team categories, not constructor/manufacturer categories - as a result of this CfD. I'm still thinking about your first question. DH85868993 (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah, good, that sorts out that side of it. I'm broadly in favour of including non-Championship F1, but we'll see how the consensus turns out. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

107% rule debates

There are discussions that I have recently contributed to in regard to the 107% rule which, although it is not highly important, I do believe it is something that needs to be considered. If anybody would like to give their opinion on the Table of violations part, and the What to do when qualifying times are disallowed part then please do so! SAS1998―Talk 21:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Mercedes Benz changes

This editor is altering references to the F1 team to link to the more general Mercedes in motorsport page. Is this right? Britmax (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I alter links to a redirection page to point to the page it redirects to. I can't see anything wrong in that. Outer Image (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Paolo Ghislimberti

I was wondering about this article, not least the apparent spelling error in the title. But also whether or not it should be merged into the race article, or somewhere else. I'm really not sure this chap is notable in his own right, per WP:1E. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed per WP:1E as you said. The article should be moved to the right spelling, and redirect to 2000 Italian Grand Prix. Maimai009 08:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the move. The spelling, though, is unclear: five of the nine sources use "Gis-" and four "Ghis-". Having said that, the only Italian-language source (the Corriere della Sera, a major daily newspaper) uses "Gis-", which probably has a little more weight than the others. Dricherby (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Lotus Renault GP in 2011

I think the Lotus Renault GP team of the 2011 season was and should be treated as being the same team as the Lotus F1 team of 2012 onwards, not the same team as Renault until 2010 and earlier. It does take some work to do this editing, but that transformal year from Renault to Lotus I think from the team's side was more intended to be linked to Lotus than to Renault, with the livery and the national registration and so on, and Renault the French car company acctually having sold its part in the team. Do you have any thoughts on this? Outer Image (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly a very interesting point you have raised. I personally do not see any problems with either option. At the time most people called the team Renault, but like you say, with the livery, etc. being the current ones, it was effectively the Lotus that we have now. SAS1998―Talk 12:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
We did go through this at some considerable length at the time; no doubt someone will be able to find the discussion(s). I wouldn't be in favour of changing it all around at this point. Don't forget that the constructor name in 2011 was Renault, and there's no getting around that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The full name of the team was Lotus Renault GP, I think, even if the car had been developed by Renault the year before, and anyway I think the formal name shouldn't matter as much as acctual ownership and branding. – Sauber's constructor name the year after it was sold by BMW was still BMW Sauber, but that doesn't mean the team was still a BMW team; it was just formal because you couldn't change the name just like that according to the rules. Outer Image (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The BMW Sauber situation was a different one, and branding/livery really doesn't matter. As I say, we've been through it before, so let's see what people think. FORIX/Autosport refer to the 2011 team as Renault, and we should be sticking with the sources. In fact, we are obliged so to do, and I think that's why the situation is as it is right now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, there was quite a commotion about the name change from Renault to Lotus between the end of 2011 and the start of 2012. Lotus (as a brand of Proton) was a sponsor of Renault. I don't think even the fact that Renault were a British team for 2011 can change that; they were Renault. —Gyaro–Maguus— 15:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
If Renault purchased the Red Bull team and took it over, but Red Bull remained the leading sponsor, would you advocate the same? It would be the change from Red Bull-Renault to Red Bull Renault.
Similar to that, Footwork Arrows exists seperately from Arrows and Leyton House Racing from March Engineering. --Falcadore (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, in that hypothetical situation, I would also think Red Bull should not be Red Bull anymore but should be Renault from then on. Footwork and Leyton House are also just the same as I think Lotus should be treated, and at least for March/Leyton House, Wikipedia refers to the article about Leyton House for the years when the team went by that name. So why shouldn't Renault/Lotus be treated the same way for the 2011 season. This may have been discussed before, of course, but sometimes you may judge things differently in hindsight. Outer Image (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Footwork took over Arrows and changed the constructor name. Leyton House took over March and changed the constructor name. The fact that both changed back is irrelevant. In the hypothetical situation, Renault take over Red Bull and change the constructor name. In the Renault/Lotus situation, this happened, but in 2012. In 2011, the team was still Renault. If you have your way, then the 2011 bit from Virgin Racing should be put into Marussia F1, since more or less the same process occurred, but in 2011, the constructor name was still Virgin and the Marussia article, rightly, doesn't go into anything about Virgin's 2011 season. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
So Outer Image you are saying a Lotus sponsored Renault team should be merged but a Red Bull sponsored Renault team should not?
Would you also say the Benetton sponsored Tyrrell Racing team should be merged with Benetton Formula? And Red Bull sponsored Sauber should be merged with Red Bull Racing? Marlboro sponsorships of British Racing Motors, Alfa Romeo, McLaren and Scuderia Ferrari should also be merged? Why not --Falcadore (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
No, I am saying a Lotus owned and branded team should be treated as Lotus, not as Renault when Renault wasn't its owner anymore. But if Lotus didn't really take over until '12, maybe you have a fair point. I thought Lotus had taken over in '11 already, but if they only were sponsors that year I think my argument falls. Outer Image (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, the FIA disagrees with you, and I'm not convinced your argument is superior. --Falcadore (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I said I already accepted you view. Thanks for being so gracious in victory. :-p Outer Image (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Lotus Renault GP's 2011 season should remain covered by Renault in Formula One and Renault Grand Prix results rather than Lotus F1 - as a general rule, we transition to a new article when the constructor name changes, and in 2011 LRGP's cars were still known as "Renaults". As Bretonbanquet has identified, FORIX/Autosport include LRGP's 2011 results under "Renault" (as, incidentally, does ChicaneF1). Here is the discussion we had about Lotus and Renault at the end of 2011. DH85868993 (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Port Imperial Street Circuit

Thought I might post this here, because there are a few issues at Port Imperial Street Circuit that need attention. As there are only two editors with opposing opinions, we need some new voices in the discussion.

The current issue relates to details of promotional runs that were performed at the circuit. The user who supports the inclusion of these edits believes that they are important because they constitute "media coverage about an officially un-named, proposed street circuit", and their inclusion is therefore justified.

On the oher hand, I am opposing their inclusion for two reasons: adding them is inconsistent with other circuit pages; the closest thing i can find is a 'Reception' section added to the articles for the newest circuits on the calendars, but these only offer the opinions of drivers after they have actually driven the circuit in racing cars. Secondly, and more importantly, the proposed edits are essentially free of any actual content. This is how they read:

In June 2012, Sebastian Vettel and David Coulthard did a promotional test run along the proposed route. Portions of the course were again driven in August 2012 by Coulthard.

To me, this is essentially saying "these drivers visited the site on these dates for public relations" and nothing more, which I don't think is an appropriate inclusion.

Since we're at logger-heads over this one, I'm inviting everyone to come over and weigh in on the debate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a scheduled event, not an established course, not a past event. This IMO amounts to little more than spam Take it out. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Take what out, already? It's not uncommon for circuits to have articles before they host thier first event. Everything added to the calendar since 2009 has had an article created before the first race was run. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sauber Grand Prix results

Should the results of BMW Sauber be combined with the Sauber results? Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

1) Why ask after you have already done it?
2) As long as BMW Sauber remains seperate from Sauber in articles, then No. --Falcadore (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Team Lotus (1958-1994) and Team Lotus (2010-11)

I propose to merge this page with Team Lotus (2010-11), because they refer to the same team. Tony Fernandes acquired all rights of Team Lotus (historical rights, naming rights and image). Team Lotus will come back in 2011 (in spanish).

"A little over 1 year later, on September 24, 2010, it was announced that Tony Fernandes (Lotus Racing) had acquired the name rights of Team Lotus from David Hunt, marking the official re-birth of Team Lotus in Formula One".

I know this has been discussed, but in my opinion Team Lotus (1958-1994) and Team Lotus (2010-11) refer to the same team. --Laln93 (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

But if you know it has been discussed, what exactly is your argument to sway the consensus? You're not exactly bringing anything new to the table. The359 (Talk) 21:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Dallara chassis names

Noting the recent creation of Dallara F191 and Dallara F192, I see that we have currently have some inconsistency regarding the naming of these cars - some articles refer to them as "191/192", some as "F191/F192" and some as "BMS-191/BMS-192". External sources are similarly divided - StatsF1 calls them 191 and 192, FORIX and ChicaneF1 call them "BMS-191" and "BMS-192" whereas grandprix.com refers to the 1992 car as a "F192". I'm happy to make all the articles consistent once we reach a consensus on the correct names. DH85868993 (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we should probably consider the names of all the Dallara chassis to avoid having to do this again every time a new article is created. Here is what various sources call all the cars - feel free to add extra columns for other sources. DH85868993 (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC):
StatsF1 FORIX ChicaneF1 grandprix.com Higham Autocourse Hodges
3087 3087 3087
188 BMS-188 BMS-188 F188 F188 F188 BMS 188
189 BMS-189 BMS-189 F189 F189 F189 BMS 189
190 BMS-190 BMS-190 F190 190 BMS 190
191 BMS-191 BMS-191 F190 F191 191 191
192 BMS-192 BMS-192 F192 F192 192 192
From what I can get from Dallara's own website, there is no specific mention of their Formula 1 chassis, but there is a mention of their 1993 Formula 3 chassis being the "F393". So the F191 and F192 names make sense in terms of Dallara's naming scheme. The359 (Talk) 17:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Higham's International Motor Racing Guide consistently refers to the Dallara cars as F188, etc... Autocourse keeps the F part of the designation in its 1988 and 1989 annuals but drops it for the later annuals. Hodges refers to the earlier cars as Bms 189 but for 91/92 it is 191 and 192 respectively. No help there then... Zawed (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the extra info, Zawed - I've added it to the table. Feel free to make any necessary corrections. DH85868993 (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
What is more likely is that F1year is Dallara's internal name for the cars and BMS-1year was Scuderia Italia's name for the cars. Can't prove it, but a client constructed car that makes sense for two names for the same car. Much like Lola T90/10 and Nissan R90CK. Pick one name, and refer to both in the article. --Falcadore (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Fernando Alonso's 2009 season results?

I don't understand why Fernando Alonso's 2009 Formula One season results are split up? Shouldn't their just be one? Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If you mean this table there are two lines because the team changed its name mid season. If you look further down the table Ferrari are the same. Britmax (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

BRM P57

Currently there are two articles about the 1961-62 F1 BRM:s. 1) BRM P48/57 about the 1961 Climax powered car and 2) BRM P57 about the later BRM V8 powered car. According to the BRM Saga Vol 2 by Doug Nye the correct BRM designations for the cars were "P57" and "P578". These were variants of the same chassis with different motors, and both have later been called "P57" causing some confusion. "P48/57" is just an unofficial name sometimes used for the "real" P57. I have edited both articles and info boxes to reflect this, calling the earlier type "P57-Climax" and "Climax powered P57", and the 1962 type "P57-V8" and "V8 powered P57", following the example of Doug Nye. IMHO the title of the "BRM P48/57" article should be changed to "BRM P57-Climax". The title for the "BRM P57" article should be "BRM P57-V8". Kurt kuurna (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the correct thing to do is merge the articles, if they are just versions of the same car. --Falcadore (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that would serve information seekers best. For example, different variants of Lotus 72 are currently under the same article. Kurt kuurna (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Did you want me to start the merger? --Falcadore (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, been busy. If you could merge the pages to one "BRM P57", I could edit the contents, thanks.Kurt kuurna (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Want to take a little more care mind you. --Falcadore (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Merger discussion started: Talk:BRM P57#Merger, please contribute. --Falcadore (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Grand Prix tables

An IP editor has started adding dates, number of laps and race distances to the winners lists in the Grand Prix articles. Statistics creep? Do we really need it when that data is covered in individual race articles? --Falcadore (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that I made a mistake in terms of adding the race distances and amount of laps. In the end, I have to agree with you- It's not necessary; I was presenting forward too much information. And the whole thing looked a bit messy. But adding the dates to the columns for each of the Grand Prix articles wouldn't be a bad idea- that looked good to me. --71.179.5.49 (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Does it add anything to the article? Does it assist your understanding of the Argentine Grand Prix to know which date each year it was held? --Falcadore (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Might be worth just putting a line in the body of the article, something like: "the Argentine Grand Prix was typically held in January or February until the early 80s, when the date moved to April", rather than putting the exact date into the tables, which looks messy and adds little. WilliamF1two (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Passing mention to time of year wouldn't trouble me, tho I don't think we need it, since the date is on both the season & report pages. The dates & mileages might be useful, cited, on the report pages, but on the "master page" for the event, no. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr Unexplained Random Changes to race articles is back

User:Trexhunter (aka Mr Unexplained Random Changes to race articles) is back, having edited 2013 Monaco Grand Prix. Please be aware. Britmax (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Noticed that. Turned up at 2013 German Grand Prix as well. --Falcadore (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

More strange random changes

I have to go to work soon but have just noticed the changes made on this list. Do we really need "La Condamine" (it's the area around the harbour, in case you were wondering) next to Monaco? I would go through them but as I say work beckons. Britmax (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

+1. Rv'd. I'll work down from there. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
This I happen to agree with. The rest are done. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. And yes, the German version of the race name should be in, well, German. Britmax (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
De nada. Juan Valdez get off my ass 00:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

2008 Hungarian Grand Prix on the front page

Hi everyone! In approximately 15 minutes from now, the 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix article will be today's featured article, displayed on the front page. The article has been semi-protected, but can I ask the members of this WikiProject to keep an eye out for vandalism and/or unwarranted changes over the next 24 hours? I will do my best to keep track of what is happening, but I will be out of the house with no internet connection for most of tomorrow. Thanks,—Midgrid(talk) 23:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Circuit de Catalunya

An editor seems to be changing the location of this circuit from Barcelona to Montmelo. is this right? Britmax (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It might well be the same editor that was doing it (a lot) a while back. While Montmeló might be geographically accurate, neither the circuit nor the race is ever referred to by that name, so no. Barcelona. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

List of Formula One Victories

An editor is adding this to driver articles. I feel that this is an unnecessary duplication of information already in the career summaries. For some drivers with long successful careers this would make already long articles even longer and harder to load. I have left a note on their talk page asking them to stop until the opinion of this project is known either way. Britmax (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Definitely unwanted, that's just plain duplication. QueenCake (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Daniels Renault Sport

This user has renamed themselves User:Speedy Question Mark. No idea why, just thought you should know. Britmax (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I forgot that I should of posted about my User change. Thanks! Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

TD in drivers Formula One results.

Is their really a need to include TD to their Weekends as Test driver in their Formula One results as their not results as they never entered the actual race. Just a thought because some drivers articles have them and others don't even thought that I know that the driver was part of Friday practice. Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

If we include the TDing drivers in the teams and drivers section of the season page, surely it makes sense to have them on the drivers' articles themselves. Technically, since they took an active part in the race, this should be noted. And while they were not entered for the race, they were entered for the event. —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
GP2 and Porsche Supercup drivers are entered for the event as well you know. Just pointing out the contradiction. --Falcadore (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
TD stands for Third Driver not Test Driver, by the way Tvx1 (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, per the key. TD is explicitly for reserve drivers who actually drive at race weekends, not every named third driver. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
You are right, there! My mistake, sorry ! Tvx1 (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Female Formula One drivers

I have nominated Template:Female Formula One drivers for deletion. Please share your thoughts at the discussion. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 23:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of deletion arguments, refer: Wikipedia:CLN#Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative. --Falcadore (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
@Falcadore: Please make your comments at the deletion discussion - the closing admin will not know to look elsewhere for comments which should be considered. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The point has already been raised. Is there a point to duplication? --Falcadore (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move: Danny Sullivan

FYI, it has been proposed that Danny Sullivan be moved to Danny Sullivan (racing driver). You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Danny Sullivan#Proposed move. DH85868993 (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya

An editor is changing references to the Circuit de Catalunya in season articles to the above. Anyone know of a good reason why this would be done? Britmax (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Found the reason now. I wish people would leave edit summaries and not just change things. Britmax (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya is indeed the new name of the circuit. However it shouldn't haven't been changed in the articles referring to the past races and the past seasons, as past events are always represented in the way they actually took place. For instance, South Africa is used for the 1993 South African Grand Prix instead of South Africa, as that was the flag of South Africa when that Grand Prix took place. So the earliest Formula One articles that should use the new name are 2014 Formula One season and 2014 Spanish Grand Prix and possibly Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya. All the previous articles that somehow deal with at Grand Prix taking place at the Circuit de Catalunya should retain the old name as that was the one that was used when those events took place. Tvx1 (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree that pre-2014 articles should still use the old name (for consistency with how we handle Imola and Montreal). DH85868993 (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there is that. This is why I bring such things to the attention of the project. Britmax (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

FYI, Port Imperial Street Circuit and Grand Prix of America have been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yet more pointless changes

An IP is making unexplained random changes to motor racing articles again, and while sometimes I would revert them systematically this week I have other things to attend to and cannot spare the time. Britmax (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


Mr pointless changes is back today. Britmax (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately this seems to be a resurrection of a very prolific vandal that was active at about this time last year. Curiously, the IP range used then was pretty much identical apart from the leading "1", which has pushed the addresses from the UK to Brazil (see the log page from the last attack). Smells to me a lot like a trainee hacker working out IP masking and automated vandalism, and unfortunately they have chosen these pages as their sandpit. I have notified the user who was able to put a stop to it last time (via a recent changes filter) but as they are now semi-retired they might take a while to reply, if at all. Until then we should be keeping an eye on it, and if any further IP addresses are used then please do revert and log the address at the log page, above. Pyrope 19:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Now we have 2.30.199.128 (talk · contribs) recording little changes on pages in recent seasons. Just to keep an eye out. Craig(talk) 17:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Grand Prix Flags

This is an important matter that needs to be resolved. A consensus has supposedly been achieved but a lot of season overview pages and a lot of individual Grands Prix pages don't act whithin these supposed consensus. I think a grand prix should carry the flag of the continent/country/region/city it is named for. After all there is a reason why it is named after that particular location. There are indeed a few exceptions where there is nog flag for that location like the Pacific GP, Pescara GP, the upcoming GP of the Americas, or even the Ceasar's Palace GP. In those examples the only option is to show the flag of the country in which the Grand Prix took place. But when the locations named in the Grands Prix's names have their own flag like San Marino, Europe(and the Flag of Europe IS used to represent the whole of Europe; it was adopted before the founding of the EU) and Luxembourg(and even Abu Dhabi too), those flags should be shown.

This was resolved a long time ago and your recent edits are, I am afraid, against the consensus. Britmax (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The consensus existed and has been generally adhered to; things have been stable. The flag MOS does not allow for flags to represent events anyway – they are supposed to represent people, teams, governments, military units or places, that kind of thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you confuse the use of the flag of Europe. The opening intro openly states that it is only officially the flag of the European Union and Council of Europe, but is only loosely used to represent Europe as a whole. It is therefore not the official flag of the continent, just one that some people use in its place.
I'd also point out that care was taken in the discussion of our flag standards, in that the calender only shows the flag in association with a location, not with the race title. Therefore using the European flag when discussing the Valencia Street Circuit, Spain would be far more confusing. However, your edits were specifically directed at the driver and constructor results matrixes, where we use acronyms to represent the races. The flags are repeated here simply for the sake of easing a reader's understand of which races they are looking at, in case they cannot understand our acronyms. The359 (Talk) 17:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
You're all completely missing my point here. I'm not trying to argue for overturning the consensus. The consensus is that there should be no flags next to the grand prix names. This consensus is only (partially) implemented on the three most recent Formula One Season's pages (2011,2012,2013). Even those pages still have the Grand Prix names with a flag under them in the Drivers and Constructors results tables. All the older pages and all the individual Grands Prix pages have a flag next to the Grand Prix names. This leads to some anomalies like the Pacific Grand Prix page showing a Japanese flag even though a couple of those Grands Prix taking place in the USA are listed on that page as well, and like the European Grand Prix being partnered by the Spanish flag, which is wrong and misleading because those readers who don't know all the flags of the world by heart, might think that flag (Spanish) is actually the flag of Europe. If it is not allowed to show the correct flags (which is the Flag of Europe for the European Grand Prix. read the 3rd paragraph of the intro of that page. It says that flag of Europe is used to represent Europe in sporting events. If i'm not mistaken a Grand Prix is a sporting event. Some well-known examples of the use of the European flag are the Ryder Cup and the Mosconi Cup. If these sports can use the European flag i can't see why Formula 1 can't use it either!), there should be no flags at all as per consensus. Furthermore the consensus establishes that no flags should be shown next to the Grand Prix names on the season's pages, not that the flag of the actual location is the correct one to use on the individual Grand Prix pages; yet I find that many of the San Marino Grands Prix pages have the flag of Italy next to its names. There is no consensus to allow that ! Tvx1 (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, gaining consensus on anything in this Wikiproject is difficult. There are lots of people with lots of different ideas, and some things just don't get decided. The consensus above was to remove flags from the GP name to the circuit location in the calendar in season articles, nothing else. So, infoboxes in race articles, driver/constructor championship tables etc, didn't come into it. People took that consensus and used it elsewhere, and it has stood in various places for years. You will now need to establish a consensus if you want to change it back again, because currently nobody else wants to change it back. Do that in a new section with a clear proposal that people can understand. You may as well stop banging on about using the European flag at all – it's not going to happen because not enough people here like the idea and it doesn't conform to the flag MOS. The Ryder Cup and the Mosconi Cup are totally different because the flag represents the European team competing in those events. There is no European representation in any Grand Prix. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I completely disagree with that. Clearly you are not European! Tvx1 (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Do not edit my posts. There is no European representation in any Grand Prix, that is an absolute fact. No team, driver or constructor has ever represented Europe in a Grand Prix. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
So why is it called the European Grand Prix then ? The Spanish flag is as much incorrect then. It certainly does not represent Spain! Furthermore the European Grand Prix has taken place in multiple Countries throughout the years so associating it with Spain simply because its the most recent host is wrong.
It's called the European GP simply through convenience – we can't have two Spanish Grands Prix. Which article are you talking about? If you mean European Grand Prix, I'd be in favour of removing the flag altogether. I don't think there's ever been a discussion on it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I know its through convenience, but why specifically the EUROPEAN Grand Prix and not any other name like the Valencia Grand Prix or the Mediterranean Grand Prix(which was at one point an official suggestion)? Because they preferred it to represent Europe! Hence it should not carry the Spanish flag like in its specific article and in any of the Formula Season's Grand Prix Results tables (save for the 2011 and season's) and any of the drivers and constructors tables in all the season's results tables from 2008-2012 Tvx1 (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe ask Mr Ecclestone about that one. I don't think we can say the race represents Europe, there's no evidence of that, and even if there were, I've explained how a flag can't be used in a table to represent an event. It was a hard enough task to prove to people that drivers and constructors represented their countries, without trying to argue that a race does the same thing. Anyway, your opinion is noted, and repeating it isn't going to make people agree with you. If you want to start a discussion specifically about changing or removing the flag above the infobox in race articles, then try it. You also need to log in. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think flags were used in the tables to represent the events but to represent the continent/country/region/city for which these events are named and which they represent. As is said these events are named after a continent/country/region/city for a reason! Not just for fun! I think there is more than enough reason to justify their use as per MOS:FLAG. If it was so hard to retain some use of the flags why are you criticizing me for trying to help on that matter. But most of all I do not understand why it is unacceptable to put flags next to the Grands Prix names in the calendar, but is completely acceptable to put flags next to the Grands Prix names in the Grands Prix results table ? Tvx1 (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
There are two separate issues here. Firstly, should the flags in the calendar be applied to the race name or to the location of the race? I absolutely agree with Bretonbanquet on this one; the name of the race is only loosely connected to the geographical location in far to many instances for this to be workable. Take the San Marino Grand Prix - it is ridiculous to display the Sammarinese flag when the event has little or no association with the country San Marino, but it is also ridiculous to display the Italian flag next to the words "San Marino". Therefore flags are definitely not going to work there. Also there is then no easy way around problems such as the Pacific and Caesar's Palace GPs, as mentioned earlier. Flags next to the venue name is far more sensible.
Secondly, should the Grand Prix results tables be consistent with whatever we agree on for the calendar - here I agree with Tvx1 - if we say it's silly to put flags next to the races in the calendar it's also silly to have them here. However, changing sixty years worth of articles is a huge task, best of luck to whoever decides to take that one on. WilliamF1two (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Tvx1, would it be possible to imagine if the European Grand Prix was suddenly going to be held in Switzerland, a country which is not a member of the EU and therefore cannot display the European Flag? We would be unable to use the European Flag for it, and this applies elsewhere across the continent. Also, the only flag that could be used for the Pacific Grand Prix is the flag used by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, since the Pacific Islands Forum only has a logo rather than a flag – and Japan not in either of these. Your argument makes sense to the layman, but once you go into detail, which is what Wikipedia strives to do, flaws are exposed. —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Why would Switzerland not be allowed to display the European Flag ? They are a European country and are a member of the Council of Europe which is the principal institution to have the European Flag as their official symbol. THE EUROPEAN FLAG WAS CREATED AS A SYMBOL TO REPRESENT THE WHOLE OF EUROPE AND WAS ADOPTED AS SUCH BY THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND WERE ONLY COPIED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION NEARLY THIRTY YEARS LATER !!!!!!! More importantly, I can't imagine a Grand Prix being held in Switzerland because motorsports are forbidden there. I have already stated my proposition on how to deal with locations which have no own flag in the start of the discussion. Tvx1 (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
In my argument, change Switzerland for Belarus (my bad, I admit I was wrong to highlight Switzerland, not having looked into enough detail, but Belarus is just an official applicant (or something along those lines) and not a member), and it was just a theoretical situation and not one based on what is possible. Anyway, you are trying to change the consensus without any additional support. I hate to say this but you will not win. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
GyaroMaguus is right – nobody has agreed with you so far. I agree with WilliamsF1two's sentiment that flag usage should be consistent across different tables and different articles, but beyond that, this isn't going anywhere. The European flag aspect is particularly hopeless, and I think it's time to drop the stick. Incidentally, Switzerland dropped the ban on motor racing in 2007. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
This not the argument right now. Belarus has never hosted a European Grand Prix, not even a Belarusian Grand Prix. If it should ever happen we should have a discussion about it at that point! Right now the European Flag IS a correct flag for the European Grand Prix! It is the de facto flag of Europe and has been worldwide accepted as such. I don't think it's time to "drop the stick" yet. There are 341 memebers in this project. Currently i have the argument of 3 members. That's nowhere near enough to have even a remote idea of the general opinion on this matter. Switzerland has not dropped the ban. It was proposed but didn't pass Tvx1 (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
There IS no argument right now. It's actually four members against you, but I think the point is that nobody agrees with you. You can assume (eventually, surely) that nobody else cares. I for one am not going to continue wasting my time. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
And stamping your foot with bolded capitals and multiple explanation marks won't work either. Britmax (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
That's four against versus 337 whose opinion we do not know yet. Tvx1 (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Consensus is not a vote, and at the moment the discussion is "I think we should change an already established consensus" and "Your arguments aren't swaying our opinion at all." Hence nothing is going to change. The359 (Talk) 16:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
What you are failing to understand here is that the European Grand Prix is just a name. Wikipedia does not for example use the Coca-Cola logo to represent the Coca-Cola 600 NASCAR race for example does it?
There is no pan-European authority connected with the running of the European Grand Prix. It is organised by Spanish authorities. Placing a European flag on the article is purely decorative. Have a read of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). Specifically it states:
Supernational flags (those of international organizations) should generally be used only when directly relevant to the article. For instance, the Flag of Europe, is appropriately used on articles related to the European Union, the Council of Europe and other situations where this flag can be used to represent Europe. In sport, supernational flags should only be used to represent a supernational team or a supernational competition, where the team or competition use the supernational flag. The European flag should generally not be used alongside a national flag in articles about residents of EU member states; it would not be informative, and it would be unnecessarily visually distracting.
124.185.17.231 (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The Coca-Cola 600 is bad example since it is not named after a location. Formula one Grands Prix have always been named after a location. They do that for a reason, not just for fun. It says right there in the description that the use of the European flag here is justified. In sport, supernational flags should only be used to represent a supernational team or a supernational competition, where the team or competition use the supernational flag. Well the European Grand Prix is a supernational competition that uses the supernational flag at the event and which plays the supernational anthem before the start of the race. The latest direct organiser might have been Spanish but the European Grand Prix has not always been hosted in Spain and therefore directly associating that Grand Prix with the flag of Spain isn't right either! Tvx1 (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
When they say Supernational, they mean a collective sport or team, such as the Commonwealth Games or the Ryder Cup. They don't mean an event named for Europe. The European Grand Prix is a supernational competition that brings in competitors from around the world, not Europe.
The European Grand Prix is not being associated with the Spanish flag. The Valencia Street Circuit is being associated with the Spanish flag. The359 (Talk) 18:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
By immediately comparing European to Coca-Cola by stating one is a location and the other is not, you have completely missed the point. The point was that what an event is named for is irrelevant because it is just a name. It is a very good example because it illustrates that many races are not named for geographic locations, therefore it illustrates that the flags are NOT used in connection with an events name. Have you looked through non-championship Formula One races like Rome Grand Prix, Mozambique Grand Prix, Pau Grand Prix, Grand Prix des Frontières and many more? You have assumed incorrectly what the practice in wikipedia is.
Also by highlighting the Supernational exception is the way that you have is a complete distortion. You've said F1 is a supernational competition so a European flag is appropriate. While the fact that F1 is supernational and the fact that the flag of Europe is supernational are both correct there is no connection between the two. The European Grand Prix features a team owned by Malaysian interests and has drivers from North America, South America and Australia, well beyond "Europe". For it to apply as you have suggested it would have to be a strictly European competition, which very plainly it is not. So please, don't make stuff up to suit your argument. 124.184.12.254 (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
First of all the Coca-Cola 600 is a part of a different sport than Formula One. Nascar is not dealt with in WikiProject Formula One. Each WikiProject has its own practice based on series of common guidelines and agreements between the project's members. WikiProject Formula 1 guidelines do not apply to Nascar related pages. If you do a bit more research you will see that Nascar pages don't even use flags at all. You simply can't compare them. Formula One Grands Prix have always been named after locations. There IS a reason for that. They don't do that just for fun! Furthermore most Formula One Grands Prix have a sponsor in addition to the location in their official title. Lastly, at each Grand Prix the flags of the location named and the anthem of the location(i.e. the national anthems of San Marino and Luxembourg at the San Marino and Luxembourg Grands Prix respectively) is played before the start of the race. So please stop suggesting that the location for which a Grand Prix is named is completely pointless.
Regarding the European Grand Prix, if this is what whe should go by: The European Grand Prix features a team owned by Malaysian interests and has drivers from North America, South America and Australia, well beyond "Europe" , we'd better drop flags all together since i.e. the British flag wouldn't be appropriate as the British Grand Prix doesn't only field British competitors. So I will rephrase my argument: the European Grand Prix is a competition that is named after a supernational entity that uses the supernational entity's flag at the event and which plays the supernational entity's anthem before the start of the race. Therefore the use of the European flag here is justified. WHY DO YOU ALL KEEP IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE EUROPEAN FLAG AND THE OFFICIAL ANTHEM OF EUROPE HAVE BEEN USED AT THE EUROPEAN GRANDS PRIX ? Even the FIA displays the European Flag for the European Grand Prix! [7]
The Spanish flag (as well as the German and British flags actually) ARE currently being directly associated with the European Grand Prix. That is the case on the European Grand Prix page, the individual European Grands Prix pages and on the season overview pages. For instance, the 2012 Formula One Season page has the acronym EUR with the Spanish flag directly underneath twice in both the drivers and the constructors result tables. That is confusing, misleading and wrong! That needs to be addressed. Tvx1 (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes Coca-Cola 600 is a different sport than Formula One, but it very strongly illustrates the point being made. The point was getting you to understand that wikipedia does not apply flags on the basis of a race's name. There are much more important considerations. Formula One races have NOT always been named after locations, you just think they are. And sometimes they are named "for fun". When a nation hosts more than one grand prix they look up a bunch of options. In Germany they've used European Grand Prix for race #2, but not exclusively. Sometimes they used Luxembourg. Similarly in France they've named their second race Swiss Grand Prix, and the Italians named their second race the San Marino Grand Prix. They do this because it's a better option than say French Summer Grand Prix or French Winter Grand Prix, although they HAVE picked seasons like Summer/Winter for when there was more than one Swedish Grand Prix. The United States when naming their second races have gone all over the shop. They've used city names, they've used compass directions like West and East. They've used variations on how you say the countries name, like Grand Prix of the Americas, and at least once, they've used the name of a Hotel! Additionally you mention the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix needs to be changed, but the flag they have always used for the event is that of the country the United Arab Emirates, so you can see by your own standards you are shouting so loudly they are not co-operating with what you believe.

So really the only race that co-operates with your belief is Europe, so essentially you are asking for an exemption to this one race? But, and this is important for you to understand, really really important, they are just names. You are giving importance to subject that just doesn't exist, so please stop clinging to false assumptions. 121.222.226.116 (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, I feel the time has come for Tvx1 to see that none of us agree here. We already said that inconsistencies need to be addressed in the results tables, but this has to be done by removing the flags (I should think) rather than changing it to the European flag. If you want to take on that task you'd be more than welcome. WilliamF1two (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
WilliamF1two: No he would not be welcome in the slightest. 121.222.226.116 (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
First of all,121.222.226.116 whoever you might be, I don't think you have the authority to decide all by yourself on WilliamF1two's suggestion. Secondly there is no general rule across the whole of wikipedia regarding the use of flags in combination with sporting events. There are guidelines, but how they are implemented is up to WikiProjects of the sports involved. In this case WikiProject:Formula One and WikiProject:Nascar. Whichever WikiProject Nascar's practices are is completely irrelevant to us as this is WikiProject:Formula One. We can't even compare these sports at all, because they have had different naming traditions for their races right from the onset of these sports. Additionally practices change over the decades so when you are describing one particular event or season like the 2006 San Marino Grand Prix or the 2012 Formula One Season you have to describe them in according to the practices that were in use at the point in time and not 50 years earlier. For approximately the last 30 years Formula One Grands Prix (and always for the Championship races) have been named after locations (and yes a hotel is a location too!) solely. The flags do not refer to the Grands Prix but to the locations they are named after, where possible. I did mention the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix Flag, but as you pointed out the flag and anthem of United Arab Emirates have been used there (as opposed to the European, San Marino and Luxembourg Grands Prix) so that is currently correct.
What my most important point currently is, but what has been ignored by everybody save WilliamF1two so far; is that there is a consensus not to show flags next to grand prix names in calendars, yet most season pages still have them in the same place in all results tables (Grand Prix, Drivers(x2) and Constructors(x2)) and on most general and individual Grand Prix pages. Most season pages don't even have a separate calendar but just have the dates merged into the Grand PrIx Results table. Since these flags are still there they should be correct (as opposed to EUR+Spanish Flag or LUX+German flag which is very misleading for all users who don't now all the flags of the world by heart) or should be removed all together. I personally oppose the later option. The FIA [8] uses flags too, so why shouldn't we be allowed to do so? Tvx1 (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
121.222.226.116, it's totally illogical to argue that we shouldn't display a flag with the European GP in the calendar, but should in the results tables. Surely removing them from both is the only reasonable solution? WilliamF1two (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how it is the only solution. Either leave as is, which has been perfectly equitable solution for approximately two years, or remove all flags from the results matrices. I definately do not support the concept of a piecemeal approach pertaining to only one of the races (seemingly based entirely on decorative factors like the singing of anthems rather than official factors like relevant organising bodies) because one editor does not like the idea that flagicons are not to be used decoratively. Tvx1 says he finds it confusing, yet can very clearly articulate the merits of his own solution. Therefore he is not actually confused, merely frustrated that others do not agree with him.
I have repeatedly pointed out examples of non-championship races where the flag of the involved nation is used. The fact that certain uninvolved pan-European bodies have a flag is completely irrelevant. Europe is NOT a nation and no pan-European body, and certainly none who recognise the European flag, is involved in the running of the European Grand Prix (FIA, FOCA, FOM are global, not pan-European). We have examples of Pacific, Abu Dhabi, Detroit, Dallas, Pescara, Caesar's Palace, and non-championship races like Rome, Mozambique, Algeria, Frontiers (in Tvx1 own beloved Belgium no less) and many more as examples. That all have sub or super national flags, but sub-national and supernational flags by wikipedia policy should not be used for these purposes. The European Grand Prix has not and should not be treated differently simply because Tvx1 does not like it.
If something confuses you on the surface, you read the article and find out why. Wikipedia serves an educational purpose, so you un-confuse yourself by reading the article, you don't change things merely to support your own point of view.
I additionally can't help my ISP randomly assigns IPs. --138.130.102.127 (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It's obvious you have completely no idea of my opinion. Firstly, I don't think flags are used decoratively here, they serve a reason!
Secondly, I never said I'm confused. I've tried to point out that pages give confusing information. As you say the purpose of wikipedia is educational, however we are currently educating false information as EUR+the flag of Spain, Germany or Great Britain is incorrect just like the words San Marino, Luxembourg or Swiss preceded by the flags of Italy, Germany and France respectively.
Thirdly, I have never said that the European Grand Prix should be treated differently. In my opinion all the examples (I don't see how the Mozambique and Algerian Grands Prix fit in since these are actual nations) should have their sub- or supernational flags applied where possible (agreed it's going to be difficult for the Ceasars Palace and Pacific Grands Prix are going to be difficult but then again they could be dealt with by adding a footnote explaining the use of a different flag on the particular pages dealing with these Grands Prix) because these sub- or supernational entities were represented by these Grands Prix. I do think we should we should treat the Non-Championship races differently than the Championship races. They obviously have had different naming customs right from the onset. Furthermore they were never treated in the same way by the organizers and the competitors. Most of these non-championship races were not even raced to Formula One rules. Every single Formula One World Championship Grand Prix that has been held right until today however was named after a location. That is no coincidence. I really think we should see them as two different groups.
Fourthly, I do not understand why the Sanmarinese, Swiss and Luxembourg Grands Prix are treated in the same way as Grands Prix named after sub- or supernations. They are actual nations which have an official flag that is universally recognized so why can't these be applied here.
Fifthly, I don't think we can keep the current situation. The consensus is to have no flags next to the Grand Prix names in the calendars. Only roughly 10% of the Formula One Seasons pages have a calendar. The pages have the "calendar" merged in the Grand Prix results table and therefore the consensus can't be applied (or if it could it is certainly not implemented at the moment). All these Grand Prix results tables as well as the Drivers and Constructors tables have the flags present (which is not a problem for me). Since is for some reason not allowed to display the correct flags there is no other option than to remove all the flags all together (of which I personally disapprove but unfortunately it is the only remaining option)
Furthermore, I can't see what more you want than the organizers of the European Grand Prix recognizing the flag of Europe as the de facto flag of the supernational entity the Grand Prix is representing. The only conclusion I can draw out of this is an outright hostility towards the Flag of Europe from your part.
Lastly, I you don't want a different random IP adress to appear each time you leave a reply, it is best to log in. Tvx1 (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't care about random IP addresses. I'm actually trying to give up wikipedia. Not having much luck so far. Oh well.
I'm pretty sure I understand exactly your opinion, but it's founded on falsehoods. Yes you think the flag is not being used decoratively, but by relying essentially on the name of the event, it is. This sort of behavior is referred to specifically in flagicon manual as has been pointed out previously. You can reject it if you like, but the falsehood is still there nonetheless.
Secondly, I never said I'm confused. I've tried to point out that pages give confusing information. If you've been able to understand it, then give credit to wikipedia readers that upon reading the article they will understand it. Wikipedia's purpose is educational, by further reading we understand. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to look better on a skim read.
That you don't see how Mozambique or Algeria fit because they are nations demonstrates either:
a) You have not read the articles, or
b) You actually do NOT understand the issue as you claim to.
Both Mozambique and Algeria at the time they held Grands Prix were NOT nations, but were colonies of Portugal and France respectively. To display Mozambique and Algerian flags would be factually incorrect. So perhaps you need to read the article presented to you before you claim you understand the issue.
San Marino, some (not all) Swiss and some (not all) Luxembourg Grands Prix do not belong to the nations labelled because they are actually second Italian or French or German Grands Prix who chose another name because they needed a name that was not Italian GP #2, or West French or Let's Capitalise on Michael Schumacher's Huge Popularity at Home Grand Prix. The San Marinese, Swiss and Luxembourgian authorities are not involved and as motor racing is banned in Switzerland it is actually laughable to suggest that Swiss GPs held at Dijon-Prenois are Swiss. That pretty much is exactly the definition of decorative.
That you've claimed that you are looking for decorative solutions for Caesar's Palace and Pacific Grands Prix very obviously displays you've not understood the previous consensus as there was universal agreement to not look for decorative options and use USA/Japan. So please stop claiming you understood previous consensus because plainly you either don't or are rejecting it, so you have no basis for claiming to act in the interests of consensus.
You've made it very obvious that you don't think we can keep the current situation, but the situation has been fine for two years so very obviously the current situation CAN and HAS been kept in the current situation. The truth is self-evident.
So perhaps I can get you to go and look at the other refered articles and come to an understanding? 138.130.102.127 (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, the only reason why I am able to understand those articles is because I, personally, am very well aware of a lot of the flags of the world. But that does not allow us to supply false information as we cannot take for granted that every reader that comes onto these pages knows nearly every flag of the world. Moreover, these flags are there for an educational reason. For example, if a reader comes onto the page of the 200X Formula One Season and sees the San Marino Grand Prix in the results table and thinks to him- or herself: "San Marino ? Never heard of that country", that same reader can click on the flag next to or underneath it and be redirected to the page of the Republic of San Marino and get some information about it. That's what educational purpose is about.
Secondly, I did understand the point about Mozambique and Algeria perfectly as the two nations I was referring to were Portugal and France! Furthermore, I tried to point out that it is better not tot treat Championship and Non-Championship races in the same way as most of them weren't even Formula One races and since this is WikiProject:Formula One we can't even decide on how to deal with them. I also tried to point out that practices change over time and that it is not because 50 years ago it was common practice to have some non-championship races not directly named after a certain location, that they still abide by the same general practice regarding naming of the Grands Prix on the present day. Articles that describe one particular edition of a Grand Prix or a Season should reflect the situation as it was at that frame in time. That's why i.e. on the 1993 Formula Season page the Kyalami Circuit is associated with the flag of South Africa that was in use on the day of that Grand Prix and not the present day one. You argument is like saying that Formula Drivers should not be penalized for speeding in the pit lane since there was no speed limit 20 years ago.
Thirdly my suggestion regarding the Caesars Palace and the Pacific Grands Prix was never intended to act within the consensus as the consensus was basically to remove flags in combination with Grand Prix names.
Fourthly, you are constantly making arguments that actually conflict with your own opinion that flags can stay in the results tables like claiming that a race needs to be organized by a (super-)(sub-)national authority to justify the use of flags. Well almost none of the Grands Prix are directly organized by a national authority, so we might as well drop the flags all together. Why do you don't want to accept that the organizers of these events recognized the flags of these supranational, subnational and national entities to as appropriate to represent those same entities these Grands Prix represent.
Fifthly, you can't possible suggest that Grands Prix like the Swiss, Luxembourg and the Sanmarinese Grands Prix have been of no meaning at all for these events. If wasn't for the San Marino Grand Prix and other similar events there wouldn't have been nowhere near the actual international awareness of the existence of the Republic of San Marino.
Lastly, I think it is preposterous to suggest there is no problem at all with the current situation. Basically there are two contradicting standards being applied: one for the calendars and one for the results. In the calendars(which are only present in roughly 10% of the articles) the priority is put on the tracks and the flags are associated with them. In the results tables and the Grands Prix on the other hand the priority is on the Grands Prix and the flags are associated with them. This is a contradicting and inconsistent. As matter of fact, there is hardly any consistency be applied over the 60 years worth of Grands Prix pages. One might nearly say that each season's page has its own rules. Furthermore the information given in is incorrect as Spain does not belong with EUR , United States is not the flag of DET and France is not Swiss.
This leaves only two options either associate the flags with the Grands Prix everywhere and display the correct super-, sub- or national flags (where possible), or nowhere associate flags with Grands Prix and go with the tracks instead. Tvx1 (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Well you're drifting further and further down the limited exemption path by suggesting that championship and non-championship races should be treated differently when the only real reason for doing so is that it suits your arguement.
The San Marino situation just highlights the decorative nature of the flags themselves. The Fla gsits right next to the words San Marino. Why not click on San Marino instead of the flag? The two perform exactly the same function so the the only thing the flag is achieveing is to decorate the words on its right hand side. This is the essence of the decoration arguement, and now you've agreed with it. Plus you're still not understanding that Wikipedia has policies restricting the usage of sub and super-national flags.
You think Spain does not belong with EUR , United States is not the flag of DET and France is not Swiss, because you want the flags to decorate the name. How many different ways does it have to be said that flags should not be used for decorative purposes before it gets understood? You want the flag of Europe to set next to the word Europe, two things meaning the same thing, using the flag to decorate the word already written.
And ALL of the Grands Prix or organised by local authorities. The FIA doesn't run the Grands Prix, they just officiate on matters of motorsport regulation. The FOM runs Formula One they don't build the grandstands, employ the marshals, contact musical acts and arrange the support categories. The Belgian Grand Prix is organised by Spa Grand Prix s.a., the British GP by the British Racing Drivers Club, the Australian by the Australian Grand Prix Corporation etc, the European Grand Prix I think by Valmor Sports S.L., so please don't sidetrack the issue with spurios claims.
And you think it's preposterous because it's what you think and you've already decided that no-one else could have a good reason for disagreeing with you. But the consensus reached with many editors multiple times over a very long period of time disagrees with you. So you can accept it or stew and plot revenge.
The fact that you want to cook up a logo for races like the Detriot Grand Prix illustrates a) you either don't understand, or b) you are completely unwilling to work with the long established consenses purely so you can have a decorative match of word and flag. This is wrong either way. This is the path Wikipedia and the wikiproject specifically, has chosen for Formula One content for over a decade. You just refuse to accept it and call it confusing and beyond understanding because essentially you don't like it. Falcadore (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not suggest that we treat the Non-Championship races differently because it suits my argument. I'm suggesting that because they have been always done so even by the organizers and competitors and because we can hardly deal with them since only a fraction of them were actually run as Formula One races and therefore don't even fall within the scope of WikiProject:Formula One.
The fact that you admit that all races are run by local authorities proves that it is illogical to associate them with flags. In fact you're contradicting yourself the whole time. In one reply you persist that a Grand Prix needs to be organized by super-, sub- or national authority for them to be associated with a flag. Yet in the next reply you claim it's actually not that relevant...
You repeatedly accuse me of not understanding the pages, yet you don't understand them yourself. None of the pages give links via the Grands Prix names to the pages of the supernational, subnational and national entities that these races represent but rather to the Grands Prix pages. That's where the flags have their purpose in providing the readers a link to those pages of the supernational, subnational and national entities so that they can be educated about them as they wish. Clearly the Grand Prix names did not do exactly the same than the flags and that is why they are not purely decorative. THEY HAVE A USE !
I have been trying the whole time, but for some reason you all save WilliamF1two keep ignorant about it, to point out that the path Wikipedia and the wikiproject specifically, has chosen for Formula One content for over a decade is nowhere near been consistently implemented right now!
Can you give any reason whatsoever why the flags in the results tables have any less decorative purpose than those in the calendars had? Tvx1 (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
You've taken my words out of context. You've said that organisers treat championship and non-champ races different so we should. Well we don't. And mostly, they didn't.
You've taken the rules to say that if the global FIA runs F1 then it's OK to use a Super-national flag and I've denied that on two fronts, by stating local authorities organise the races. So that's that misinterpretation cleared up.
You're the one whose been trying to associate organisation with flags, and I've stated that you are in fact wrong. So that's logical.
You've said that they don't give links to the entities they represent. But they DON'T represnt these areas. They are races that have names and you've been giving, consistently the races name more imprtance than they actually have. That they represent a nation of super-national interest is a connection YOU have made. It is isn't correct.
When the flag says the same thing as the words next to it then its superflous and flag does not have a use. It's just that simple. Like for example: 1st place, gold medalist(s) One. Logo and word saying the same thing, so the logo is decorative and superfluous. --Falcadore (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
You cleverly ignored my most important question from my last reply. Can you give any reason whatsoever why the flags in the results tables have any less decorative purpose than those in the calendars had? More precisely what is more decorative about this Australia Qantas Australian Grand Prix than about this
AUS
Australia
If you look closely you will see that the in Grand Prix example taken from a calendar the only element that would be providing a link is the flag, so please stop saying they have the same purpose. Furthermore why is 1st place, gold medalist(s) One decorative and superfluous and why are Australia Australian Grand Prix and
AUS
Australia
not. You will also note that clicking on the Grand Prix name and clicking on the flag produces a different outcome so they don't do exactly the same. The flag has another use. Finally, you've once again undermined your own vision since you say that when the flag says the same thing as the words next to it then its superflous, yet you have no problem with them doing just that in the results table.
I have never associated the organization with the flags. You did that. I have from the onset associated them with the locations.
Adittionaly, it's worth noticing that with myself, WilliamF1two and Bretonbanquet ( who has said that he agrees with the sentiment that flag usage should be consistent across different tables and different articles) there currently three members disagreeing with your view that the tables can stay like they are without any problem! Tvx1 (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It's important to you, but of limited importance to me. How the races are represented in the matrix results tables is of very low importance. My primary concern has been about inventing new procedures completely against everything we've always done and against established wikipedia policy.
If you want to know where your idea of race names having great importance falls over the worst? The race at the Nurburgring has had no less than three different names. So plainly the name of the race is of low importance, otherwise one name would have stuck. --Falcadore (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion is descending into farce, so I have a suggestion. Is there any issue with simply saying that we should remove all flags from F1 articles except those which refer to drivers, teams and circuits? This would solve the issue all together, surely? WilliamF1two (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Well although my opinion lies more with the opposite(=reinstating them everywhere) I will support this option if it's the only option that gets any sort of support. For consistency's sake I (reluctantly) agree. Tvx1 (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
As for reinstating them everywhere, there are loads of examples where it isn't really possible. As I've said before, look at San Marino. To display the Italian flag with the words San Marino is confusing, to display the Sammarinese flag is just wrong, as the race is held in and organised by the Italians. Therefore no flag is the only sensible solution. WilliamF1two (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I've spotted my name being used here. I did say that flag usage should be consistent, but consistency is not mandatory. We are not obliged to be consistent across a set of articles, although it's usually helpful. That's the first thing. The second thing is that some people keep losing track of what consensus was achieved: we agreed to switch the flag from the race name to the circuit in the calendar. Nothing to do with the results tables. I suspect that was because there was too little chance of getting an agreement on it.

We will not be "reinstating flags everywhere". The flag deletionists will be all over us. Plus it makes pages look awful. Plus any number of other reasons. I think we can reduce our new proposal to two points:

1. Remove flags in driver and constructor results tables in season articles.

2. Remove the flag above the infoboxes in a) generic race articles, e.g. British Grand Prix, and b) specific race articles, e.g. 2012 British Grand Prix.

If there's a consensus for this, we can do it. If there isn't a consensus for it, we should probably shut up about it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing the flags from the results matricies. The359 (Talk) 21:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't get the problem with the status quo. Apart from one user wanting to make up their own procedures which has always been wrong.
I don't get the confusion argument, all you have to do is read the accompanying article and the confusion is removed. We've actually not had any statements that it is confusing. The only confusion has been assumed by editors who claim they understand but fear without evidence that others find it confusing.
That being said I have no real problem with Breton's point one, although I would say that flags according to geographic location rather than race name is a widespread use across many wikipedia articles, I don't really see why its a problem in Formula One championship races (not non-championship notably) or in any other series. Those championing consistency might want to take note that it would be increasing inconsistency across Wikipedia:Motorsport just so one or two editors can feel happier about decorative flag usage. --Falcadore (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The only issue I have with Flags is the Flag of the European GP, personally I feel it should have the flag of the EU, the game uses it as well as TV Shows and the F1 website had used it. Other place on the wikipedia I noticed have got the EU flag next to the European GP on records pages. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree with you on that matter, but for one little detail. It's not just the flag of the EU but the flag of Europe. The EU copied it as their official symbol nearly 30 years after the flag's original creation. For the rest I think you're completely right! Tvx1 (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Well it sounds to me like your real problem is with the Wikipedia Manual of Style for flags which states that sub and supernational flags should not be used for that purpose, so perhaps you really need to take the argument up there rather than here. So get that rule changed first. Do you need pointing in the right direction? --Falcadore (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
That's the whole point about this,Falcadore. There are no rules in the Manual of Style. They are not rules or policies. They are guidelines. How these guidelines are interpreted and implemented is up to the different WikiProjects. If a WikiProject agrees on a consensus that the use of flags is appropriate for a certain purpose that is their good right. That is how WikiProject Nascar has decided not to use flags at all, WikiProject AOWR has decided to use the flags of the actual countries where the races took place in combination with the races names, WikiProject MotorCycle Racing has decided to use the flags of the entities represented in combination with the races names (e.g. flag of Valencia for the Valencian MotoGP, flag of Catalunya for the Catalan MotoGP and flag of flag of Aragon for the MotoGP or Aragon) and WikiProject Formula One has decides it is best no to use flags in combination with the Grands Prix names, but rather with the circuits. It's each WikiProject's right to reach their own consensus.
This is an encyclopedia and it has the goal to provide an accurate collection of information on the subjects it's dealing with. The subject of this particular part of the Encyclopedia is Formula One. It's my personal opinion that we should depict our subject here like they themselves depict them and in particular regarding the flags it should use the flags (where they are still present i.e. the results tables) they themselves deem appropriate to represent them. Again, this is my personal opinion and anybody has the right to disagree with it as everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. Tvx1 (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
And we at WP:F1 have chosen our interpretation after years of vigourous debate. It's also your opinion that F1 championship races should be treated differently from all other races, and there has never been an interest in doing that. --Falcadore (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It's interesting you mention that as, interestingly, I have noticed that these races are put in different categories within Wikipedia. Tvx1 (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, merely putting things in separate categories does not constitute "different treatment" as I suspect Falcadore meant it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
But the project considers them fundamentally different so why should they be treated exactly the same? Tvx1 (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Tvx1: We also have different categories for F1 races depending on which country they are held in, like Auto Races in Germany, Auto Races in Belgium etc. And different categories as to whether the race existed before the world championship began in 1950 or not. So why is it relevant based on categories? --Falcadore (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Tvx1: The project does not consider them fundamentally different – to extrapolate that from categorisation is an utter nonsense. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I would be strongly in favour of Bretonbanquet's two proposals, but I appreciate that it is not an easy task to change this in more than 60 seasons worth of GPs... WilliamF1two (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I oppose the latter and am ambivalent to the former. My opposition is based on being sick and tired of going through this exercise whenever someone decides they like the idea of making flags match names for no purpose other than decoration. The flags as they are across all open wheel race articles serves a purpose and it is a purpose not served by changing it on a whim. --Falcadore (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree in that there is very little wrong with the status quo, which would explain why it's what we agreed on last time... WilliamF1two (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Where does this complete u-turn of opinion come from WilliamF1two? Anyway, I agree with Bretonbanquet's proposals. Tvx1 (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not a complete u-turn, I agree that Bretonbanquet's proposals are marginally better than what we have, but what we have isn't at all bad, so probably not worth changing. I perhaps didn't make that quite clear enough, apologies. WilliamF1two (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been a while, and I see a weak consensus for the first proposal and no consensus for the second. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

More eyes needed on unsourced unexplained changes

I have to go to bed soon but a watch should be kept on this contributor. The only edit of theirs I have found to have a source quotes Autosport on the return of the Mexican GP next season, and even this is footnoted as awaiting contract and confirmation. I'm afraid we have another extra work magnet here. Britmax (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much that they are doing that isn't done by a hundred other inexperienced IP editors every day, and much of their work is constructive. On the other hand, this edit of yours is cause for concern, especially when combined with your edit summary that stated "It may be on the calendar but it can't go into the history until it has happened." Not only did you leave the 'offending' material within the History section, you reinserted the duplicate paragraph (also within the History section) that the IP had removed, and added a somewhat inexplicable dash after the year. You also oversimplified the year range for the races that happened from the accurate range that the IP entered. I'm not normally one to haul up other editors on their editing behaviour and relationship to other editors, but in this case you should look up the phrase "hoist with your own petard", and think on. Pyrope 23:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I reverted more or less as a reflex action when I was half asleep. As usual, an edit summary might have helped. Thanks for tidying it up: I suspect both this and the idea that Kimi is already Massa's replacement will need watching over the next few days. Britmax (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Some of those are getting back into the "geography wars": is the Luxembourg GP in Luxembourg? (I rv'd based on where it was held...) I've also been skipping down the contribs page & looking at other changes, which will take a few more days. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
And now we are going to have to watch speculation as to who will replace Kimi at Lotus. What's the betting on some IP's and an unsourced Kimi/Massa swap? You read it here first... Britmax (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
♠No bet, it's going to happen. :(
♠Looking at the contribs, it looks like a a fair bit is trivial formatting stuff (new headers & such), but there's some piping of team names I'm less sure is really helpful. It doesn't rise to vandalism AFAICT so far, but it looks kind of personal-preference finicky. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Kimi

Someone has added that Kimi is going to be a Ferrari driver. They have done this, understandably, because the BBC have said so. If you look at the BBC article it says "the team have not announced this but an an announcement is expected imminently". This is obviously the BBC flapping to beat Facetwitter to the punch. What's the point? Britmax (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The point of that rant, just in case it loses something in writing, is that if the BBC don't wait for the official announcement that makes persuading editors not to jump the gun that much harder. All they have to say is, well it's on the BBC, and what have you got to persuade them otherwise? Britmax (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed a worrying trend whereby people simply read a headline and don't bother to go into the actual article. The Beeb article is a prime example of this - the headline implied Raikkonen had joined Ferrari, but the body of the article showed he hadn't. It was obviously a headline intended to get more readers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

New Marina Bay circuit diagram

I have successfully created File:Singapore street circuit v3.svg, the new Singapore GP map, without the turn 10 chicane. I have added it to / updated Marina Bay Street Circuit, 2013 Singapore Grand Prix, ‎List of Formula One circuits, and Singapore Grand Prix. Where else does it need to go? SAS1998―Talk 21:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming season's page calendar

Following discussion exists on the 2014 Formula One season's talk page:

So they have just released the calendar and honestly I reckon there could be some changes in it Matt294069 (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussions. If you have good reason to believe that the calendar will change and have evidence to support making those changes inthe article, then we're all ears. But if you just want to talk about the calendar in general, I suggest you go to the Autosport forums or F1 Fanatic.Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I think he may be pointing out that this is a preliminary calendar, and not an FIA approved calendar. This is literally Bernie sending out emails to the teams telling them what he plans for next year, the whole thing still needs to be voted on by the Motorsport Council. Hence it could indeed change. The359 (Talk) 08:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
If the calendar was not issued by the FIA then it should not be included at all. --Falcadore (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That does indeed seem likely given how much to-ing and fro-ing we've seen with races being agreed and dropped just in the last couple of months. To that end I think it would have been quite prudent to keep the reference to the New Jersey situation on there in the 'Changes' section until we have a final, confirmed calendar at the end of the year saying it will not happen. Stranger things have happened than races finding funding to get them back on track and even if that doesn't eventually occur, it's still noteworthy to state that a major project to get an F1 race to happen there is in place and had been approved, with those having invested in it thus far presumably still attempting to resurrect it. Recall that until yesterday we had no realistic intonation that there would be a Mexican GP next year but that is now on the article, although the actual likelihood of that occurring has been widely questioned. Until the calendar is finalised, I think it's worth including a reference to every race which has at some point been announced by Bernie as having a firm contract for 2014 on the changes section. BroSwerve (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe about New Jersey, since Bernie has suggested that there could be a 22nd race next year, but not Spain. Barcelona and Valencia were planning to alternate like Hockenheim and the Nurburgring, but it never happened. It's not a change, so it shouldn't be mentioned. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Bernie has denied there being any calendar. It boggles me that people can not wait until official calendar is released. Calendar should be remvoed pending confirmation. Wikipedia is not a news site we don not have to carry a calendar yet. --Falcadore (talk)
I agree with Falcadore here. Bernie has indeed denied the calendar in an interview with Sky Sports. He has furthermore confirmed that the Grand Prix of America still has a contract. I think it would be best to revert the article to the previous situation with the list of contracted races. The Spanish Grand Prix host circuit has been made increasingly uncertain and maybe it would be best to display that as TBA for the moment. We should not display a calendar at least before the WMSC convenes about it an releases an official (albeit provisional) calendar in a couple of weeks time. Tvx1 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
We have seen plenty of instances in the past where Bernie has said one thing and done another. Especially when he is trying to get an event to work on his terms, like New Jersey. Even if he denied the existence of this calendar, we still have it from a reliable source, and so we can infer that it is legitimate as they would not have published it otherwise. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The article that is used as a source for this calendar does not provide any reliable source for it and the person who is in charge of making up the calendar has questioned the authenticity of the calendar. I think we have to say in this case we cannot be sure whether the calendar that is provided by Autosport is legitimate. I might be, but we're no certain enough of that to publish it here. Furthermore we have no official statement of the organizers involved in organizing the Grand of America that it won't take place, of those involved in organizing the Mexican Grand Prix that they even have a contract and of those organizing the Spanish Grand Prix that it will certainly take place at the Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya. The current calendar is nothing but speculation and is therefore in contradiction with Wikipedia's policies. It is best to revert to the previous situation with the list of contracted races. Tvx1 (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
We have seen plenty of instances in the past where Bernie has said one thing and done another - that seems to me to be the perfect definition of unreliable source. As in past years the temptation to compose a calendar until the FIA publish one. We don't have to put one up, we are not a news source. Put it at Wikinews. --Falcadore (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Once again, I have to agree with Falcadore here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news site. Tvx1 (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Bernie is the archetypal unreliable source. He often spins a lie or two to certain interviewers simply because he likes winding them up. He perpetually plays games when talking about race contracts, circuit developments, new teams, people running out of cash, everything – his whole modus operandi is playing one person off against another, that's what he does. Let's stick to the FIA sources, and we can easily wait till they confirm things. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing how this draft calendar is speculation. The references given make it clear that this calendar was shown to team principals for feedback. If it was some kind of hoax, the principals would have spotted it immediately. They wouldn't accept a draft calendar for review from anyone who was not in a position to hand them that draft calendar.

To address Txv1's argument, we have never needed an independent statement from race organisers to verify a calendar being legitimate - only to verify the inclusion of that race before a calendar is published. You want the calendar to confirm the race and the race to confirm the calendar.

Hey, don't change my words to make them suit your argument. I was just pointing out that the current calendar is being used to confirm the Mexican Grand Prix, the Barcelona race and no American Grand Prix even though none of the organizers involved has made a statement on that matter. What I want and what is actually this project's policy is for the organizers to confirm the race, not the calendar and not for a race to confirm the calendar either.
Furthermore your argument that it has been distributed to the teams for feedback proves that this calendar has no meaning. For all we know, they might all have rejected it. Do we have any statement from any team regarding this draft calendar? It is very clear that this calendar has no official status whatsoever. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site. On this page we display races who have a firm contract for the upcoming season, no speculation calendars.
Lastly, please sign your posts.Tvx1 (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
To answer the question directly, it's speculation because it is not an official FIA release. --Falcadore (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree with that! Tvx1 (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Txv1, I suggest you read the practices you cite a little more carefully. In the past, we have only sought confirmation of a race joining the calendar from the event organisers when a calendar has not been published. When the calendar is published, that is considered confirmation enough. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Now this is what we have trying to point out to you! No calendar has been published, not even a provisional one. All we have so far is an e-mail, which has been denied by the person who has allegedly sent it. It has no official status whatsoever. Furthermore, most opinions in this discussion so far are clearly in favor of removing it. So its safe to say that if any consensus can be established here, it is to remove the calendar from the page in favor of the list of contracted races until an official one (provisional or not) is published. Tvx1 (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Ironically enough, that draft calendar was published just hours before you posted that. I'm editing from a mobile, so I can't share the link, but it's on Autosport as we speak. :::::::::::: Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
If you are referring to this [9]; we have to disappoint you but it doesn't have any more official status than the previous one. It's clearly made by autosport based on all the information they have regarding the contracted races. I suggest we show here on the page what we are certain of at the moment and put the calendar on it when it's officially released on friday. Tvx1 (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A publication is either reliable as a source, or not reliable. You cannot pick and choose which articles from that source are reliable and which are not, especially when your argument is that we cannot be sure of the sources used by the publication. While it is true that we cannot demonstrate that the calendar given to Autosport was genuine, it is equally true that we cannot demonstrate that the calendar given to Autosport was not genuine. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

And that is the definition of why it is unreliable and should not be used here! You now admitted yourself that it's unreliable. So surely you have to agree with everybody else here! Tvx1 (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I should have known that you would only read half of that comment.
You can't prove that the source used by Autosport is reliable. At the same time, you can't prove that the source used is unreliable. So to question the reliability of the sources they themselves use is to question the reliability of the entire publication.
Given that Autosport has been used for years as a reference, we can reasonably assume that anything they publish is published in good faith. So if they say the calendar they published was a draft calendar being sent to the teams, then we can assume that it is because they are a reliable source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have now adressed the planned races section. I sincerely hope we can keep this lay-out without to much discussion until an official calendar is released in a couple of days. I think it's the most accurate representation of the current facts that are known. I have added some further explanation to the current American, Mexican and Spanish Grands Prix situations. I have left the Spanish Grand Prix venue as TBA on the list as there are currently conflicting reports concerning the host of the 2014 Spanish Grand Prix and we can't be certain which one it's going to be a the moment. Tvx1 (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

And I have undone that edit, because you are using one rule for one piece of information, and another rule for another piece of information.
On Wikipedia, the truth is what you can prove. You cannot selectively add or remove information from an article on the basis that you are unsure of it, particularly when it comes from a reliable source. You certainly cannot use contradictory reports from unreliable sources to justify removing reliably sourced content.
It comes down to this: we have a draft calendar that was published by a very reliable source. Where that source got it from is not our concern, because we have no way to substantiate it, just as we have no way of substantiating anything that any source publishes. This is why we use reliable sources - because they can verify information that we cannot.
Please do not revert any content on the page until you can provide a source that clearly states that the draft calendar was bad. If you're going to make a change on that scale, which removes reliably sourced content, then you need a reliable source that has been published since that calendar was released that clearly demonstrates that the original was wrong.
After all, you are the one demanding that content is added or removed on the basis of sources. It's time to practice what you preach. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Sigh! I should have known that my hope was in vain. I really can't see what your problem is with having a list of contracted races whose presence is individually justified by reliable sources instead of calendar based on a preliminary draft for one. Why can't you just wait 3 or 4 days until the official (albeit provisional) calendar is released. And why if you are so adamant on using the draft here, then why do you maintain on using the original one and not the recent update?
What more do you want to prove that a preliminary draft is wrong than an interview with the man that has allegedly sent it in which he denies having done so?
Why do you claim that my edit is unsourced while I actually reinstated and added about 25 different sources? I even left your source for the calendar in the article in a more appropriate manner !
Exactly what contradictory reports from which unreliable sources did I use?
And finally, why do you keep ignoring the fact that everybody keeps disagreeing with you ? Tvx1 (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with individual references for individual races. What I have a problem with is the way you are trying to pretend that the draft calendar does not exist because we can't prove that the source used by the author was legitimate - but you're not demanding the same thing if other sources, and expecting us to somehow verify the sources ourselves.
Secondly, as has been pointed out to you before, Bernie Ecclestone has a documented history of saying one thing and doing another. Don't you remember the Donington Park episode, when he said that Silverstone would never host the British Grand Prix again and awarded the race to Donington, and then did a backflip and signed a seventeen-year deal with Silverstone? In retrospect, the entire thing was done to soften Silverstone up. So Bernie might control the calendar, but he's proven to be unreliable in the past.
Now, answer me this: if you are demanding that we seek further verification of the Autosport source because you believe that what is presented at face value is misleading, why aren't you demanding that we seek further verification of Bernie's comments, given that (as I have just demonstrated) we have good reason to believe that what is presented at face value is as equally misleading as you believe the Autosport calendar to be? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
So if you have no problem with the individual references for the races, then why did you revert me reinstating them. After all the only difference with your calendar and the edit I made is the presence of the dates and the venue for the Spanish Grand Prix. I can't really see what your obsession is with dates already being there. They don't have much meaning at the moment. The only thing that really matters now are which races are on it.
If you question Bernie's reliability, then why do you only disregard the interview denying the draft and not the draft he has allegedly sent?
I'm not claiming that the draft doesn't exist, I and all the others in this discussion are trying to explain to you that it is insufficient to use as a source for a calendar. I didn't remove that source in my edit though. I used it in a more appropriate manner. The current draft is nothing but speculation as is proven by the fact a recent update has been made by autosport, which is apparently not even good enough for you as you have refused to incorporate it in to the article so far.
Finally you have refused to answer over half the questions I have posed to you in my last post, so here goes again:
Why do you claim that my edit is unsourced while I actually reinstated and added about 25 different sources? I even left your source for the calendar in the article in a more appropriate manner!
Exactly what contradictory reports from which unreliable sources did I use?
And finally, why do you keep ignoring the fact that everybody keeps disagreeing with you?Tvx1 (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As the official calendar for that season has now been released it no longer really relevant to discuss this any further on that season's page. Still I think its no time to shelf this matter yet. After all, the exact same situation will probably arise next year and every following year. So I think is in everybody's interest that we reach a consensus and forge that in to a guideline for the project on when to start posting a calendar on an upcoming season's page. More precisely is a draft for a calendar enough to do so? My opinion is it is not and we should wait until the official instances release the official (provisional) calendar. Tvx1 (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is noone replying here? I think I have raised a valid issue and would be very helpful to discuss this a bit. Tvx1 (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

FYI, List of achievements by Ayrton Senna has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. For those who aren't aware, a full list of active F1-related AfDs (and PRODs, CfDs, TfDs, etc) exists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Article alerts (which is updated once a day). DH85868993 (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger

FYI, it has been proposed that BRM 15 and British Racing Motors V16 be merged. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the merger discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Maria de Villota

There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:List of fatal Formula One accidents#Maria De Villota regarding the inclusion of de Villota on the list of fatal F1 accidents and the possible rewording of the list criteria. Please have your say. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

2016 Formula One season

FYI, 2016 Formula One season has been recreated. DH85868993 (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

CfD

FYI, Category:Monaco Grand Prix winners has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Low quality editor alert

User:BoomBoomPoow needs attention here. Britmax (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

TfD

FYI, Template:2013 F1 Constructors Standings has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The nomination has been expanded to include {{2012 F1 Constructors Standings}}, {{2014 F1 Constructors Standings}}, {{2012 F1 Drivers Standings}}, {{2013 F1 Drivers Standings}} and {{2014 F1 Drivers Standings}}. DH85868993 (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2010 F1 Points System

Template:2010 F1 Points System has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

List of Formula One records moved

An editor has moved List of Formula One records to List of Formula One constructor records. I have lodged a request for the move to be reverted, on the basis that the new name is unsuitable (as the article contains more than just constructor records). DH85868993 (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The article has been moved back. There is now a discussion in progress on the talk page. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Talk:List of Formula One records#Move?. DH85868993 (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

AfD - further input requested

Further input has been requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of achievements by Ayrton Senna. DH85868993 (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

New articles

FYI, the following articles have recently been created: 2014 Formula One season cars, Renault Energy F1-2014 and Red Bull RB10. Red Bull RB10 has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm also in the process of nominating the other two pages for deletion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Kvyat and AFdC

Just a quick heads-up, ladies and gentlemen - please be on the lookout for vandalism, particularly on the Daniil Kvyat article. It's currently got an orange lock, so changes need to be reviewed before appearing in the text, but something might slip through. Lots of people are unhappy that Toro Rosso took Kvyat over da Costa, and they're expressing it by trying to make out that Kvyat stole a seat that was rightfully da Costa's. It's been an issue on the 2014 season page, which has been semi-protected accordingly. It might also come up on the AFdC article, but I haven't seen anything (yet), and it currently remains unprotected. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you put any vandalism warnings on the contributors talk pages? It is useful to do so. --Falcadore (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I did what I could, but when I am editing from a mobile device, I can usually only edit in templates and code that I remember from memory. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

2014 Indian Grand Prix nominated for deletion

FYI, 2014 Indian Grand Prix (a redirect to 2014 Formula One season) has been nominated for deletion (on the basis that it has been confirmed that there will be no Indian Grand Prix in 2014). You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Propulsion Universelle et Recuperation d'Energie (PURE) AfD

The PURE article has been nominated for deletion after the argument at Talk:2014 Formula One season. Please have your say at the AfD page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Grand Prix Representation and actual Countries!

I know this has been discussed a lot, But the flags on the Grand Prix articles should represent the Grand Prix itself not the country it is in, The Swiss Grand Prix was held in France a few times but was still represented under the Swiss flag as well as the Luxemburg Grand Prix being held in Germany but with the Luxemburg flag etc. The articles should represent the Grand Prix's like F1 itself does because using the Spanish flag on the European Grand Prix article would confuse the reader as it wasn't always held in Spain and even though the San Marino GP was held in Italy it was always represented under the San Marino flag and that's how readers would relate to knowing what grand prix that is. Just trying to make the articles better to understand for the readers because one of my friends who was getting into Formula One's history got confused over the Grand Prix flags and he's not stupid. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Then if it's been discussed a lot, you have an answer for the Detroit Grand Prix, Pescara Grand Prix, Pacific Grand Prix, European Grand Prix, Las Vegas Grand Prix, and so on? I for one associate a Grand Prix by its name, not some arbitrary flag placed next to it, quite frankly. The359 (Talk) 18:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't saying that it was the flag alone that identifies the Grand Prix I was saying that the flag's help represent the curtain Grand Prix, The European Grand Prix is always represented under the EU flag but yes their are some exceptions where the European GP were held outside the EU but still are represented on informative websites and media under the EU flag and so are many other events in other sports that use the European title, And for the Pacific GP and so on, are the exceptions as they are titled under places without their own flags, except Las Vegas which have their state flag but you would know that the event was held historically under the US flag. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree with Speedy Question Mark here. To make a proposition here that would allow us to deal with the all the Grands Prix, including those mentioned by The359: What if we use the flags used by the Grands Prix and thus the organizers themselves. After all this is an encyclopedia and I thought that gives actual, factual representations of events. So shouldn't we represent F1 here like F1 represent themselves, no ? Tvx1
For God's sake. Are we going to go through this every month or so? TVX (for it is you, whether you sign your posts or not), look at The 359's point and try to answer his question in the context of your last post. Can't be done. Need I remind everyone that the flag icon MOS does not permit flags to represent events, only people or places. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Grand Prix's are not places they are events. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
You've answered your own question then, Grands Prix can't have flags. Circuits can, and they currently do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The articles I'm talking about are the Grand Prix article which are events not the tracks. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but the flag we use represents the host country, the country where the circuit is, for reasons already explained. Having a flag just to celebrate the name of the race fails the MOS because it's just decoration and adds no information. Having a flag at all is a stretch and there have been a lot of arguments about it from the flag police those editors who like to follow the MOS closely. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Then the flags should be removed altogether then if that's the case because even having the flag of the country hosting the event can cause as much trouble and arguments proven by all the discussions about it over the past months. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I suggested that during the last discussion and there was no consensus to do that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
It stares up a lot of arguments with editors and also confusion with the readers so this problem cant just be ignored. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Well the discussion above (Grand Prix Flags) proves that we're not ignoring it, but we do have to agree on stuff, that's how it works. If there's no consensus to change things, then we don't change them. Pretty much the only consensus we've ever reached on flags was to use the system we've got now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Well a consensus needs to be reached as this discussion will probably resurface in another five months by another editor. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
We have a consensus, that is to keep things as they are. If someone wants to change it, they need to get themselves organised in a way likely to change that consensus, i.e. clearly set out exactly what they want to do and in which articles they want to do it, and then people will have their say. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
We need a new consensus which isn't one where its just ignored and brought back up in another month. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
It isn't ignored in general, it's basically stable, though it was never rolled out everywhere, probably because it was a lot of work. Reaching a position where everyone will be happy and nobody will ever challenge it is a dreamworld. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I think I had perfectly provided a possible solution to The359's concern. By representing the Grands Prix like they represent themselves we can use an universal guideline that allows us to deal with every F1 grand prix that has ever taken place. When I used the word "event" in my reply I didn't mean that in the commercial sense, but in the sense of something that happened at a certain place in time. Furthermore the MOS does not permit anything as it does not have the authority to do so. There are no lows or rules or policies or whatever enforcing instances in MOS. What is written in there is nothing but mere guidelines.Occasionally, exceptions can apply. If we can reach a certain consensus, whatever way, regarding the use of flags within the scope of this wikiproject it is our genuine right to do so. Tvx1 (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
After yet another read-through of the MOS, I cannot find the passage where it explicitly says flags cannot be used in combination with events. In short it says flags (even super- en supranational ones) can be used where they are relevant. As the "events" this Wikiproject deals with use flags themselves I just can't see how they are not relevant here. Tvx1 (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the flag icon MOS is a guideline created by a consensus at the MOS page; editors can't just decide whether they're going to adhere to it or not, even at WikiProject level. WikiProject consensus does not overrule a MOS because the MOS is Wikipedia's consensus regarding flag usage. WikiProjects don't have any "rights" over articles. We are on the very borderline of violating the MOS with regard to using a flag icon in driver infoboxes, even though it's our consensus to use them. You don't want to know how many acres of cyberspace I used up trying to keep those flags. Secondly, you talked about using the flag the organisers used – how do you propose to determine which flag they used in the 1957 Pescara Grand Prix, for example, or any of the others The359 mentioned? Thirdly, a flag cannot directly represent an event, it's a non sequitur. It can only ever have a decorative function if the event takes place in a different country from that whose flag they're waving. With regard to your last point, I don't think the "flag of the event" has any relevance whatsoever to an encyclopedia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have read the MOS on flags, and I believe it favours SpeedyQuestionMark and Tvx1. Firstly, we have "In general, if a flag is felt to be necessary, it should be that of the sovereign state (e.g. the United States of America or Canada) not of a subnational entity, even if that entity is sometimes considered a "nation" or "country" in its own right." However, we also have "Subnational flags (regions, cities, etc.) should generally be used only when directly relevant to the article." While these may not allow a flag for the Pescara GP (as Pescara doesn't have a flag, but the Abruzzo region does), it would change the flags in races such as the Detroit GP and even for the Indianapolis 500, as in these situations it could be considered relevant. There is also "Supernational flags (those of international organizations) should generally be used only when directly relevant to the article. For instance, the Flag of Europe, is appropriately used on articles related to the European Union, the Council of Europe and other situations where this flag can be used to represent Europe. In sport, supernational flags should only be used to represent a supernational team or a supernational competition, where the team or competition use the supernational flag. The European flag should generally not be used alongside a national flag in articles about residents of EU member states; it would not be informative, and it would be unnecessarily visually distracting." I believe this to allow the use of the Flag of Europe next to the European GP, for while a Grand Prix can be (and usually is) referred to as an event it can also be referred to as a competition. It should be noted that there is no (meaningful) mention of "event" in the entire section.
Overall, I feel that the Caesars Palace GP, Dallas GP, Detroit GP, European GP, Indianapolis 500, Luxembourg GP, (1982) Swiss GP should use their own flags. The Pacific GP should get its own flag, but what flag would require discussion. The Pescara GP cannot use anything but the Italian Flag unless proof that the Flag of Abruzzo was used at the event is found. —Gyaro–Maguus— 02:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
To use you're quote GyaroMagnus - Supernational flags (those of international organizations) should generally be used only when directly relevant to the article. For instance, the Flag of Europe, is appropriately used on articles related to the European Union, the Council of Europe and other situations where this flag can be used to represent Europe. In sport, supernational flags should only be used to represent a supernational team or a supernational competition, where the team or competition use the supernational flag. The European flag should generally not be used alongside a national flag in articles about residents of EU member states; it would not be informative, and it would be unnecessarily visually distracting.
Well, the European Grand Prix does NOT represent Europe - there is no pan-European authority or organistion ivolved, there is the global World F1 bodies and the local Spanish authority that runs the race. An the competition itself is supranational, but it is a World championship, not a European championship. It is also not even informative, because the European flag would be place alongside the words European Grand Prix. When the accompanying words say exactly the same thing then the flag by itself is not informative, it is decorative. All adds up to good reasons to not use the European Union flag. --Falcadore (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
To answer you based on the quote. I think these situation would fall into the "other situations where this flag can be used to represent Europe" category. To put it pure and simple. The competition (i.e. the European Grand Prix) itself uses the flag so it is relevant in this subject! Tvx1 (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
"Uses"? You use that term a lot. Wht do you mean by it? Uses for what exactly? Anything that is actually relevant to the competition, or is it just decorative? Decoration is a very minor usage, and I would say easily irrelevant. How about explaining the "use"? --Falcadore (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Are we back here AGAIN? Flags have always been associated with geographic location because a name is just a name. You don't seem to have a problem with the Korean Grand Prix using the South Korean flag instead of an invented pretend Korea flag do you? You don't think using South Korea instead of Korea and using the European Union flag for Spain is a double standard?
Answer me this, why is using a consistent standard for ALL races instead of a made-up one based on an editors personal preferences a bad idea? --Falcadore (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Additionally a question for Speedy Question Mark - you make this arguement as though the flags are used exclusively by the Formula One World Championship, where is the flags and infoboxes are used in a very wide variety of races - such as well... the contents of this Category:Formula One non-Championship races. Plus Formula 2, Formula 3, Formula 3000 etc. So do you have a flag for the Evening News Trophy‎ ? --Falcadore (talk) 05:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no problem with the flag of Korea as the official name of that state is the Republic of Korea. South Korea is just a colloquial name, which has no official status whatsoever, used to easily differentiate it from the Democratic Republic of Korea. The proposal made here would allow us to use a consistent standard for all races which is what we don't have know. Right now we have the personal preference of editors such as you. There is a flag for the Evening News Trophy‎. The one that was used by the race itself. Tvx1 (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
We have a consistent standard now, you just don't like it. --Falcadore (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
"Right now we have the personal preference of editors such as you."
That's exactly what we don't have. We have a consensus, and unless you're actually going to do something constructive to try and change it, then maybe you should stop having a pop at other people. There is no proposal here, just a mess.
The European Grand Prix does not represent Europe. It was not a European competition for European countries or entrants, like the Eurovision Song Contest or something. It was an FIA world event that existed solely to give a European country two races, not to represent Europe. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
And I wonder if you recognise just how ridiculous the idea is of employing "the flag used by the Evening News Trophy". Apart from being nonsense, just how would you attempt to determine which flag the race "used"? Or the Caesar's Palace race etc etc etc. Let alone why they "used" them – to represent the race? Or just the country where the race was held? Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I would attempt to put up another decent argument, but somehow the "Grand Prix of Europe" doesn't represent Europe (I read what you wrote Falcadore, but it represents Europe, and in that situation, is any race not organised by a government organisation not eligible to use its flag?), and the oft-disagreed, oft-debated and controversial "consensus" cannot be considered for changing as Falcadore, Bretonbanquet, etc use a different interpretation of the MOS guideline on flags to people like me, Tvx1 and Speedy; to which there is a deadlock. I propose a straw poll of as many members of the F1 WikiProject as possible to see whether the whole community believes there should be changes or not. And I proposed something, which I will alter to: use sub/supra-national flags: Dallas, Detroit, Europe, Indy, Luxembourg, Switzerland and potentially Pacific; and use national flags: Caesars Palace and Pescara. Otherwise, I won't bother to argue properly because I know whatever I say won't be good enough for some of you guys. —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the European Grand Prix is meant to represent Europe but the flag being the EU flag should be presented on the article because that was the flag used always at that event, Their is a lot of proof to back me and TVX1 up on what we are trying to get across, And with the Korean Grand Prix using the South Korean flag that's how its represented historically since 2010 under the South Korean flag this isn't a political debate on if the Korean GP article is correct to use the South Korean flag because it is, as the event itself is always been officially under that flag. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
(e/c) Of course the consensus can be considered for changing – how people can't see that I attempted to do exactly that in the previous discussion above, I'm not sure. Thing is, before people get shirty about it, there has to be enough people who want to change it. Right now, there are three – nowhere near enough, considering there are also three here who don't want to change it. The use of sub/supra-national flags is flatly against the MOS, no getting around that because there is no "direct relevance", quite apart from the obscure flags that would introduce. People here talk about flag use being confusing and they want to bring in flags that nobody will recognise? Let's also try to get away from this "three of us want to change everything and you're just getting in our way" implication. If you want to change something, make a proper proposal and get a consensus, rather than having a go at those who disagree with you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, saying it's "oft-debated", when it's the same editors bringing it up every time is a bit disingenuous. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
If we decided to use the flag "used at the event", someone please tell me how you want to do that for historic races? You can't have a policy if you can't apply it across the full range of articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
If its at a historical event then don't use the flag icon unless theirs proof/source. Just to bring this up but the San Marino GP was always under the San Marino flag historically, TV, Games, New publications the event itself represented it through the SM flag not the Italian why should Wikipedia be any different. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
So you want a policy that uses different criteria for different races? You basically want modern races to use the same flags as they use on the TV and older races to use the flag of the host nation. Not exactly logical, is it? This is partly why we use a flag to represent the circuit, not the name of the race. The name of the race is a relative irrelevance. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
You still don't get what I'm saying, I meant the articles which are historical, shouldn't use flags on their article unless a editor has a reliable source. The modern GP's have plenty on sources to back up the use of the flags. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
San Marino flag historically, TV, Games, New publications the event itself represented it through the SM flag. Represented how exactly? Did they merely decorate things with the flag or was it indicative of an actual official representation of San Marino?
You see, by your logic, if a race was organised by Americans and held in America and had nothing to do with say Zambia, but was called the Zambian Grand prix, it would then have the Zambian flag? It's just a name.
See User:Speedy Question Mark, you're taken to this "use" like TVX1. But used for what? Used for decoration? Is decoration really that significant? --Falcadore (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem with straw polls, is if you get enough people to vote upon it, you can chaange Wikipedia to say the earth is flat, which is why voting is not generally used within Wikipedia for editting. --Falcadore (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
A few things:
  • Firstly, the straw poll is to gauge what the F1 Wikipedian community think. This would allow us to see what percentage of people want change, while keeping the discussion at a reasonable length (as basically the same arguments (in both directions) would be duplicated). I understand that changing the consensus with three people against two is not a good idea (I very much doubt that came out of my previous statement).
  • Secondly, when I say "oft-debated", I mean that the debate arises on many occasions, and I'm pretty sure a different editor brings it up every time but more or less the same people argue.
  • Thirdly, using sub/supra-national flags isn't against the MOS, as I attempted to explain in my first argument here, but basically it is not the favoured option.
  • Fourthly, we will have confusion both ways. When the Spanish Flag is used for the European GP, that looks confusing and I highly doubt it would make sense or aid a reader new to the topic. However, using, say, the Flag of Dallas or Detroit will lead to flags used that are solely not recognised, a lesser issue in my eyes.
  • Fifthly, the consensus does mean that we have different criteria for different races, as long as the San Marino GP holds onto the Flag of San Marino.
  • Sixthly, if the flag is next to the event, then why is flag of the circuit being used? That doesn't make sense. IF the flag used was the flag of the circuit (see 1997), then I would have no problem with this in the calendar table but the problem would exist elsewhere, such as result matrices.
—Gyaro–Maguus— 13:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm saying that the for example its wrong to have the Italian flag on the San Marino GP article because that flag was never used or had anything to do with the event. National events can happen in other country's if that's what your saying. Like the event organiasers of the Swiss GP were mainly Swiss but because motorsport was banned in Switzerland they moved the event into France using the Swiss GP name and flag it was still a Swiss event but held in France, just because a international event is held in so named country doesn't mean that its a event that the so named country created or is held for. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
How exactly is it confusing? Should ALL flags correspond to their localised version? Should a list of cities in South America have the flag of their compenent countries or the flag of the city? How confusing would that be to have a hash of virtually unknown civic flags which do absolutely nothing to the articles except decorate the name of the city? By placing the Brazilian flag next to Sao Paolo, it does not match Sao Paolo, but indicates the city is in Brazil. However by your logic because the it is not the flag of Sao Paolo it would be confusing.
Additionally, it is not the role of Wikipedia to "dumb things down" for the sake of a perceived confusion (which by the way I have never seen any evidence of). If something confuses you, you click on the blue link and read to find out why that might be the case. For example in San Marino Grand Prix article it says in the very first line of the article that the race is actually held in Italy. So all you have to do is read and your confusion is gone. That's the beautiful thing about Wikipedia, we have those bluelinks so readers can find out more information on the subject.
Wikipedia serves an educational purpose, and you should give wikipedia users more credit to think they might be confused by a little flag. --Falcadore (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes the San Marino GP was held in Italy on a Italian circuit but the GP/Event itself was always held/represented under the San Marino flag so what your proposing is simply wrong when the articles about the event not the circuit. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no Sao Paulo GP, it is the Brazilian GP, which should use (and does use) the Brazilian Flag. And for "perceived confusion", how can you not see how "Spain European Grand Prix" won't confuse anyone? It just doesn't make sense to the F1 layman, and even has confused me a small bit, and I am an F1 know-it-all. The intro of the European GP only says the most recent set of races were held in Spain, but using the Spanish flag in the European GP article to me makes little sense. For the header of the infobox, it would be better to write something like "Europe European Grand Prix", "United Kingdom Germany Spain European Grand Prix" or even "Italy France Belgium Spain Switzerland United Kingdom Germany Monaco Netherlands Austria European Grand Prix", because putting the Spanish Flag there implies that the race always been held in Spain, which is not the case. As for the San Marino GP, it is not consistent if it is allowed to use the San Marino flag with the rest not using their own flags (or vice versa), regardless of the text to the first line of articles. —Gyaro–Maguus— 13:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The San Marino GP is a totally different case as the event was always held under San Marino flag. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The San Marino flag being above the infobox on those articles is a result of the consensus not being fully rolled out, rather than some kind of exception being made. Lots of articles were not updated to conform to the consensus, as it was a lot of work. I really don't know why there is a flag above the infobox on these articles. What does it do, exactly? Apart from decoration, I mean, I know that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I have been refuted that there's is no personal preference involved in the unwillingness by some users to accept the use of super- and supranational flags in the scope of this wikiproject. I had a good reason to claim that. It has now repeatedly been pointed out and confirmed by multiple users that the use of these flags is justified per MOS here. Yet, some users refuse to admit that for no other obvious reason than it's their personal preference not to use them for whatever reasons.
  • Secondly, I cannot see why there was ever an argument regarding Korea. There is a Grand of [the Republic of] Korea and it uses the flag of [the Republic of] Korea. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that flag. Neither North Korea nor South Korea have an official status as names for those countries and are merely used as a colloquial name to make an easy difference between those republics. It's an identical situation as the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China as well as the Republic of Congo and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
  • Thirdly, I have been accused of not having made a proposal and only having presented a mess. However I have made a formal proposal right at the start of the discussion. Use the flags that are used by the Grands Prix themselves as a symbol by which they can be universally recognized by virtually every citizen of the world. Although I do agree with the other proposal as well, I understand it is preferable to have a single standard for all the Grands Prix (although I personally can't see what's so bad with having EXACTLY two ways in which to deal with which flag to show, who are clearly explained on the WikiProject page). That's why I have made a slightly different proposal. I agree that it is appropriate for the Grands Prix like the Dallas, Detroit, Caesar's Palace, Swiss and Pescara Grands Prix to have a sperate flag if that Grand Prix took place under that flag. The city of Pescara does have a flag. For some reason it is not on this wikipedia. You can find it on the Italian wikipedia though.[10] It would introduce some new flags, but the users that don't immediately recognize them and wish to learn more about that subject can do so by virtue of one click, ONE SIMPLE CLICK on the flag in question. Those flags are not just symbols but they provide useful links as well. So we would add to the educational purpose of our project's pages as well. As far as I can remember one of the purposes of an encyclopedia is education. The only example that would form a problem in the other proposal would be the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. Those Grands Prix were all raced under the United Arab Emirates flag and we can't display the flag of Abu Dhabi there. I took that into account in my proposal and it would allow us to deal with that Grand Prix as well.
  • Fourthly, Bretonbanquet, your definition of what the meaning of "representation" required for the use of a flag is is completely wrong. Furthermore it's nowhere mentioned on any part of this encyclopedia and therefore it is nothing but original research. It might help you substantiate your preference not to use the European Flag, but it also, unwittingly, implies that we should remove all the flags from this project as no grand prix whatsoever is solely a competition of that entity and is only open for nations or entrants of that entity. Some examples: the British Grand Prix is not a British competition that is only open to British nations or British entrants, the Australian Grand Prix is not a Australian competition that is only open to Australian nations or Australian entrants,the Belgian Grand Prix is not a Belgian competition that is only open to Belgian nations or Belgian entrants... Additionally, if there's no connection at all between the European Grand Prix and Europe, than why didn't the body that holds the copyright (the Council of Europe) to the Flag of Europe (which was designed on THEIR demand as a symbol to represent the whole of Europe) object to it's use by the European Grand Prix and anyone involved in that competition?
  • Fifthly, regarding the List of cities in South America, that problem has already been solved by the addition of a column containing the countries (with flags) they belong to. In fact, If you do some research on the different pages of cities all over the world you will notice that the flags that are most prominently depicted on those pages are the flags of these cities and not the flags of the countries they belong to. Moreover, some of those pages don't contain the country's flag at all!
In summary, the only substantiated argument that has been brought forward against any of the proposals is that it is a change and that it would require some work and forthcoming from that let's not do it at all because it's just to much effort to do some research. That is a testimony of laziness and is pretty laid back. I'm absolutely convinced that it is possible to find out under which flags these races were held. Just like it was possible some time ago to find out what were the official names of the Grands Prix that took place within the confines of the United States of America. I read that discussion and it showed that through the combined efforts of the users involved it was possible to find the necessary information. I am convinced that a similar effort should be possible for this cause as well. Lastly, the current consensus isn't as great and as universal as well as it is currently only applied to a minor fraction of those pages involved. The worst part about it is that if every user involved in this discussion would tackle around 10 of the pages concerned we could make them consistent in about half an hour of time. Tvx1 (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

TLDR but in quick response: Point 1 I find puzzling – I don't refuse to admit that it's my personal preference not to have certain flags. Nowhere have I said otherwise. Regarding the MOS, no, some people have given their interpretation of the MOS, and I have given mine. I've quoted a chunk of it below (under Point 5) which directly relates to the subnational flag issue, I don't see any wriggle room in that. Nothing has been "confirmed as justified". I'm sure you don't want to leave a message at the MOS page for the MOS creators to come here and have their say? Or do you?

Point 3 - Still a mess. Where do you want to use these flags? Generic race articles? Individual race reports? Season articles (calendar / driver/constructor results tables?)? "Use the flags used by the Grands Prix themselves" – do you mean the organisers? Grands Prix can't use anything. What's so bad with having two ways to deal with flag use? They contradict each other. How exactly do you plan to prove what flags were used by race organisers in the 1950s and 1960s etc, if any? Start with the Pescara race and find me something that proves what flag was used to represent it at that time.

Point 4 – I'm quite happy to remove all the flags from above race article infoboxes, yes, that's right. I don't see the point in them and they have no purpose other than decoration. They also obviously cause confusion. You completely misunderstand my point though, as I was referring to the use of sub/supranational flags representing an event not open solely to parties from those specific areas. Last time I looked, the UK, Belgium and Australia were nations, not supranational entities. The guidelines regarding use of sub/supranational flags are different from those regarding use of national flags. I don't believe the use of the European flag constitutes "direct relevance" to an article about the European Grand Prix because it isn't a European event. It's an FIA/worldwide event that uses the name and flag of Europe as a badge of convenience, therefore carries no real relevance to anything.

Point 5 – subnational flags are used in articles about cities because that's allowed under the MOS but "Subnational flags (regions, cities, etc.) should generally be used only when directly relevant to the article. Such flags are rarely recognizable by the general public, detracting from any shorthand utility they might have, and are rarely closely related to the subject of the article. For instance, the flag of Tampa, Florida, is appropriately used on the Tampa article. However, the Tampa flag should generally not be used on articles about residents of Tampa: it would not be informative..." blah blah. How does a subnational flag's use in a race report not contravene that?

It would be worth noting that further badinage here is fairly pointless. Nothing will come of it without input from others. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

As an "other":
  • I oppose the use of flags based on the names of the Grand Prix as unworkable without rampant inconsistency. I reject the argument that (for example) the San Marino Grand Prix has any intrinsic connection to San Marino that the Italian Grand Prix does not have, as not based on fact. The last season where every race was named after an independent state was 1992, but we have to go back to 1975 for a season that truly fits the pattern where every Grand Prix is named solely after the country that staged it. The model that this system relies on simply doesn't work. (And before someone says 2013, consider  Abu Dhabi.)
  • WP:ICONDECORATION bans the use of flags and other icons for purely decorative purposes; basing the flag on the name of the event breaks this rule and I see no reason not to follow it.
  • I oppose the use of subnational flags that will be little-known to our readers in every relevant case. I see no reason not to follow WP:MOSFLAG's guidance that subnational and supernational flags should not be used without direct relevance, which does not exist here.
  • I would support a proposal the removal of all flags representing Grands Prix as unneeded decoration. I would permit exceptions to this next to the circuit name in articles on individual Grands Prix or events (e.g. next to the words "Suzuka Circuit" in the infoboxes of 2013 Japanese Grand Prix and Japanese Grand Prix).
  • I am happy to accept the status quo - to use the flag of the country in which the race was staged, regardless of name, as the most appropriate, policy-compliant and informative solution that retains the flags.
I believe this puts me in broad agreement with Bretonbanquet. Kahastok talk 21:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Have you even read through this discussion, Its completely incorrect to use the flag of the country that the circuit is located because that's the circuit location not the actual event like I've said many times, The solution your proposing is miss leading to the readers. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I see no sense in which what I'm proposing misleads readers. I find the notion of a flag of the "actual event" to be a fundamentally meaningless concept. Kahastok talk 22:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree completely with Kahastok. I have been attempting for some time to get an explanation for "use" and "actual event" and beyond decorative purposes I cannot discern any. --Falcadore (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't thing the flags are for decorative purposes. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
And yet they are. Where are they "used"? Websites? Programs? Sounds pretty decorative to me.
Its completely incorrect to use the flag of the country that the circuit is located because that's the circuit location. How is it incorrect? If it was German flag used to indicate the Valencia Street Circuit it would be incorrect. Spain is not incorrect, the circuit is in Spain regardless of the races name and regardless of the merits of this discussion. At best you could only claim its an interpretation you do not agree with, so please, no more "incorrect". --Falcadore (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Tvx1 and Daniels Renault Sport: (sorry, Speedy Question Mark): please accept that you are not going to change consensus on this, and find something worthwhile to do. There's plenty here. Britmax (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Well at last one user has admitted that the only motive to keep getting across of our proposal is personal preference. Unfortunately for that user that is completely irrelevant here.
  • Secondly, regarding the pages of cities. I never claimed that the use of supranational flags is wrong there. I just tried to point out that they are more prominently present than the flags of the countries they are part of. Sometimes the country's flag is even completely absent from the page. This clearly shows that in some cases supranational (or even super national) flags CAN preside over national flags.
  • Thirdly, again, the use of flags on these articles is not purely decorative. They are used and approved by the Grands Prix (an yes in fact that means the organizers) as a symbol to identify them in official programs, websites and media outlets all over the world. Additionally, they have an educational function on this pages as they allows the readers to find out more about these subjects by virtue of ONE SIMPLE CLICK as they provide useful links. This also means that supra- and super national flags can be used here per MOS on relevancy grounds.
  • Fourthly, I'm puzzled with the argument that Grands Prix can't use flags. I can't find anything to substantiate that in the whole of wikipedia. Furthermore they(=the organizers to be exactly precise) use flags themselves in reality.
  • Fifthly, the current status quo isn't waterproof at all. There are examples where conflicts arise. Let me cite one. The 1982 Swiss Grand Prix is combined with the French flag on the pages dealing with it. However it was organized by the Swiss Automobile Club (=Automobile Club de Suisse). It had nothing to do with France and the only reason that it took place in France was quite simply out of convenience because motor racing in any form is prohibited to this day on Swiss territory and the Dijon circuit,conveniently, is a location close to the Swiss border. France had nothing to do with the organizing of the race. So you see the actual location of the Grand Prix isn't always the only important criterium to go by.
  • Sixthly, I do admit that my proposal might not have been clear enough. So I'am going to rephrase it. Use the flags that are used by the Grands Prix themselves as a symbol to identify them in official programs, websites and media outlets all over the world and by which they are identified by virtually every citizen of the world. We should implement this in the areas where the Grands Prix names are still combined with flags. These are, regarding the Grands prix pages, the Grands Prix overview pages and the individual Grands Prix pages and, regarding the season's pages, the season overview tables and the result matrices.
In overview, I still can't see any convincing arguments based on the actual guidelines (I repeat guidelines, not rules, not laws, not policies) of the wikipedia. The only ones I read here are out of personal preference, which is irrelevant, and out of laziness because it's a change which requires some work so let's not do it because it's just not worth the effort. Tvx1 (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If I can just address two small points of your dead-horse-flogging exercise above: a) I have never said my only objection to your proposal is based on my personal preference, and I'd like you to strike that, along with the implication that I'm only here to bugger up your crappy proposal. If you've read any of my posts, you'd know that I have a number of objections, and they happen to coincide with my personal preference. I hope that's clear enough to you now. Furthermore, even if my opinions were solely based on personal preference, they still count every bit as much as yours do. B) Regarding your second point, you've contrived not only to misunderstand the acceptable usage of supranational flags, but you've also misunderstood what I said regarding them. I'm not quite sure how you've managed that, but I'm definitely not explaining it again. If you don't understand the objections to your wishes, well, it doesn't matter. You're just repeating yourself and you currently don't have enough support for what you want to do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have done yet another read through of MOS:Flags and have found a passage that clearly proves that events CAN have flags. It concerns the passage "DO NO REWRITE HISTORY". It literary reads: "Flags should not be used to misrepresent the nationality of a historical figure, event, object, etc. Political boundaries change, often over the span of a biographical article subject's lifetime. Where ambiguity or confusion could result, it is better not to use a flag at all, and where one is genuinely needed, use the historically accurate flag. So clearly the claim that flags cannot be used in combination with events has been a misinterpretation all along! Tvx1 (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
That does not in any way suggest to me that the nationality of that event might be something other than the country in which it took place, which is what you want it to say. That quote clearly relates to points on a map which change nationality over the years, like places in Poland that used to be in Germany before boundaries were changed after the war. They're talking about flags which explain where an event took place, and by that they almost certainly mean historically significant events, not routine sporting events. You are finding parts of the MOS and making them fit your wishes. Note that it also says that where confusion arises, it's better not to use a flag at all, and I'm increasingly in favour of that idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Seems like some stubborn editors keep ignoring the facts right in front of them as Tvx1 has proven that the flags are not used as decretive. Its like certain editors want this discussion to go on forever. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
TVX has proven nothing of the sort. This discussion has effectively ended because there is almost no support for your idea. Criticising others for stubbornness when it's you two that keep flogging this long-buried horse is somewhat ironic. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
You've once again completely missed my point. I didn't in anyway claim that the cited passage proves that the nationality of an event is not the location. I wanted to point out that flags can be used with events. At this point it isn't even accepted that the flag of the location is used (e.g. calendar) because of an obvious misinterpretation that flags allegedly can't be used with events. Furthermore, multiple users have already alerted to the fact that the location is not automatically what constitutes the nationality of a Grand Prix as for instance in the case of the 1982 Swiss Grand Prix which was entirely organized by Switzerland and only took place in France purely out of convenience. This is where the current consensus falls over. Tvx1 (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand how their is no support for what we are saying... Its the other way around, I've not seen anything supporting your side of the discussion at all? Just complaining? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Why would you say that User:Speedy Question Mark? Can you only read back eight posts at a time before you can't read users names anymore? It's been a whole three hours since Britmax and I posted.
And if I understood Tvx1's defence before, the usage is not decorative because its used in official websites and programmes... which is actually well... decorative. I don't understand why he can give a dictionary definition of something as a denial. Officially decorative is still decorative.
And Tvx1, there not being any racing circuits in all of Switzerland is more than merely an act of convenience. That is a nonsensical statement.
It should also be said that something being a guideline rather than a rule is not a carte blanche excuse to ignore it if it suits your purposes, otherwise there would be no reason to write guidelines at all. You take WP:NORULES completely out of context by doing so. --Falcadore (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The convenience was because there is a ban on motorsports on Swiss TERRITORY. Other than that it was entirely organizeb by Switzerland Tvx1 (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
That still doesn't it make it a matter of convenience. Having to hold the event in a whole other country is a pretty big thing, convenience understates it quite a bit. --Falcadore (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
TVX, I haven't missed your point at all, I merely refute it utterly. Whether flags can represent events in terms of where they happened is one thing – you're talking about flags representing an event in terms of the nationality of the authority which organised the event. Not the same thing at all. Nothing at all backs that up in the MOS, and I think it's a very poor idea indeed. In the calendar on the season articles, the flag isn't used with the event, it's used with the circuit. We are not talking about "the nationality of a Grand Prix", why can't you understand that? The consensus built back whenever it was was specifically trying to get away from the ridiculous concept of the nationality of a Grand Prix, and that consensus does not fall over in any sense.
SQM, do you really think this is you and TVX versus me? Can you not see anyone else here? The359, Falcadore, Kahastok, Britmax... ? If we're counting up, I see five against three, including Gyaro Maguus on your side of the argument. Regarding the Swiss GP being held in a foreign country, I'd regard that as a matter of some considerable inconvenience to the organisers. Regardless of who organised it, it was organised in France. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity I feel the need to ask. Your most recent objections have been based on objections that relate specifically for races like Swiss/San Marino/Luxembourg, objections based specifically on nationality. By that might I interpret you no longer have objections in regards to Europe/Detroit/Pescara et al? Or are you debating races individually, if so the argument should perhaps be subdivided to match? You see, arguing over the 1982 Swiss GP so specifically ignores completely the reasons why it was done this way in the begininning. For consistency across all races regardless of being a Formula One World Championship event or not, and to reflect the location of the event because a great many races do not have a geographic or national component to their name. You want to dismiss all of that just so you can have a San Marinese flag sit decoratively next to the words San Marino, possibly suggesting to the point the Grands Prix des Nations might be represented by a what... the UN flag and forgeting/ignoring that the European Grand Prix itself pre-dates the existance of the European Union flag. To back up what Bretonbanquet has just posted, if you have a hard time understanding the objections presented to you, it is because you misunderstand what the flags are being used for in the first instance. --Falcadore (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case change it so the flags next to the name of the circuit. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly how they are represented on season articles. And have been for some time. Prisonermonkeys (talk)\

Well Tvx1, you've gone to MOSICONS and had it stated categorically that sub and spranational flags should definately not be used, and when told about F1's overuse you get offended. Well I can only hope this brings an end to the matter. --Falcadore (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

One user giving his opinion is not the same as being categorically stated. It's about time for you to realize that the opinion of one single user is NOT THE LAW. Just like you persistently think that your and Bretonbanquet's opinion is the law here and that no other user's opinion has even a remote significance. That shows no other traits than that you seem to think that your the owners which is not allowed on wikipedia. Furthermore you are consistently breaching the guidelines of being polite and of assume good faith.
Now,on the discussion at MOSICONS I explicitly asked for the reactions of users NOT INVOLVED in the discussion here to give their opinion. Yet, you found it necessary to get yourself involved and even worse to provide misleading information to the users there to try and bias them in your favor and than when you think there's a conclusion to come back here and provide misleading information regarding it right here.
Furthermore you reaction regarding me being offended proves that you don't even bother to properly read the arguments of any user disagreeing with you. Because if you would have you would have realized that I wasn't offended because our Project was accused of overusing flags, but because it was accused of being the ONLY ONE of overusing flags.
Lastly, regarding the reactions on how the articles are presented at the moment; the flags are not exclusively used with the circuit names. Many elements of the pages (season overview tables, result matrices, infobox headers,...) still uses the flags in combination with the Grands Prix names. That's why this discussion keeps resurfacing once in a while in the first place. Tvx1 (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I hope everyone can see the result of taking things like this to the MOS page – namely we're now having to defend the use of flags for constructors because one of the MOS chaps doesn't like them. If we could just once in a while we more reasonable about flag use... TVX, if you don't like my opinion then maybe I should just let it go, and allow that user to remove all the F1 flags. Regarding your last point, I have moved to get rid of flags in results matrices and infobox headers and not enough people want to do it. So I dropped it. That's what you do when you don't get a consensus, maybe you should try it sometime. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I think you're make more of it than necessary. There's no need to be so frightened by one user. One user can't change the practice here all by himself. That's why we have something called a consensus. Furthermore, as you have perfectly explained it in that discussion, that user has it completely wrong. Your defense regarding the constructor flags is correct and completely founded. Tvx1 (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm certainly not frightened of him ;) It's a bit of a pain in the ass though. Technically, if they collectively decided to do so, enough of them could come here and turn over a consensus. You've seen how they don't like us much already. They don't need to be project members to have a say here, and I don't want to give them any encouragement. Thanks for your comment on my response to him, I was hoping I kept it civil. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, your right there. On the other hand his colleagues haven't supported his claim so far, so I don't think we should be afraid yet. 109.128.111.188 (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)109.128.111.188 (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a difference between fear and respect. Some of us have been working on this project for years. Perhaps the acquisition of that knowledge of Wikipedia's systems might help you to understand the limitations and boundaries. Sub/Supranational flag was never going to find favour, it's universally frowned upon, guideline or not. WP:FORUMSHOPping the issue doesn't help your cause. --Falcadore (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Not only users who have been here for "years" earn respect. New users should equally be welcomed and be dealt with in a polite manner and one should also assume good faith in the contributions of other users (whether they are "new"or not). You seem to remain oblivious to these things however. You think your opinion is the law here and that it should not be disagreed with. Furthermore you're consistently bossing around users who have not been around here as long as yourself as if you were the owner here. I do no like being accused of forumshopping. The only reason why I went to MOSFlags in the first place was because another user hinted at doing so and because the users disagreeing with the propositions made here keep hiding behind MOSFlags to do so even though other users have clearly explained them that it is not a crystal clear backing for either side of the argument. Furthermore I have presented our case in a neutral manner, a neutral point of view being another concept you remain oblivious about, as requested by WP:FORUMSHOP and tried to keep as uninvolved as possible, yet you found it absolutely necessary to get yourself involved in order to try to bias them in favor of you by going as far as telling blatant lies. Then you come back here and provide incomplete and misleading information regarding the outcome of the MOS discussion, which hasn't even finished as well, in order to try and turn this argument in your favor as well. I find it puzzling that in this discussion the opinion of one single user isn't even remotely relevant, yet in the MOS discussion the opinion of one single user is enough to claim an universal agreement on your point of view. If you find it necessary I will be happy to cite all the users who have voted in favor of sub/super national flags on talk pages such the one of the European Grand Prix to show you that there's no "universal" agreement with your point of view on that matter. Tvx1 (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
You say I should assume good faith when the very first thing you've said on the subject is to imply there was no consensus on the subject.
This is an important matter that needs to be resolved. A consensus has supposedly been achieved but a lot of season overview pages and a lot of individual Grands Prix pages don't act whithin these supposed consensus. I think a grand prix should carry the flag of the continent/country/region/city it is named for. After all there is a reason why it is named after that particular location.
I don't how to interpret the use of the word supposedly in that context as good faith, particuarly when you're first factual statement is incorrect (After all there is a reason why it is named after that particular location. - most frequently it is because the geographically correct name is not available either through duplication or in one famous case court action) and you've not retreated from the point. You've been shown the links to previous consensus which has frequently stated the worth of sub/supra-national flags. And then go to the MOSIcons to ask them to agree with you and when you get the expected denial say its an unfounded attack. So I am at a loss at what else to say. How many people saying no will it take? -Falcadore (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Your last reply just proves once again you fail to assume good faith in an other user's contributions, especially if that user disagrees with you. The reason why I wrote that "supposedly" in the previous discussion is that although there is a consensus the majority af the articles affected by it do not act in accordance with it. Contrary to what you seem to believe I do quite a lot of research on an issue before posting a reply. That's what assuming good faith means.
Furthermore I did NOT go to Mosflags to make them agree with me. I don't understand why you keep claiming that. I went there because another user hinted at doing so; and because Mosflags has been repeatedly brought up by the users involved in this discussion and because they have clearly proven that there are different ways to interpret MOS' guidelines and that your interpretation is not necessarily the ONLY correct one. I do not understand why you insist on remaining oblivious to the fact that I have presented the issue at MOSFlags in a neutral manner. I went there IN GOOD FAITH to get a neutral point of view on the matter. If there has been one user who went over there with the sole intention of making them agree with you it's you. You have now repeatedly tried to bias them in favor of you and even went so far as telling blatant lies in order to do so.
I thought I already had pointed out to you that my defense of the unfounded attack was about ONE SINGLE USER claiming that WikiPoject Formula 1 is the ONLY project overusing flags. I would also like to point out that another user has replied not to have any problems with the presence of flags in the articles save in the info boxes. Tvx1 (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Preferred layout for Template:Formula One

An editor has questioned whether Template:Formula One should be converted to a navbox. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Template talk:Formula One#Convert this to a Navbox. DH85868993 (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Consecutive streaks

There's a discussion in progress at Talk:List_of_Formula_One_driver_records#Alberto_Ascari_consecutive_wins_dilemma regarding whether or not races in which a driver/team was not entered should be counted when listing consecutive streaks, e.g. whether Alberto Ascari should be credited with 7 or 9 wins in a row in 1952-53. Please express any views you may have on the matter at the discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Frank Williams Racing Cars

I've looked over the "Former" constructor navbox and Frank Williams Racing Cars are mentioned but they never was a constructor as they always used consumer chassis through the teams whole existence, In the teams later years they renamed the consumer chassis under the FW name but it was still considered consumer so why are they mentioned as a constructor. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Er, no. FWRC built the Politoys FX3 (later renamed the Iso Marlboro FX3B), the Iso Marlboro IR, the Iso Marlboro FW (later renamed the Williams FW) and the Williams FW04. DH85868993 (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Alright then thanks for clearing that up for me but the sarcastically rude "Er no" wasn't needed. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
You are correct. Please accept my apologies. DH85868993 (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The Frank Williams Racing Cars article does provide quite some detail on the teams efforts as a constructor, so you could have read the article too. It's a reasonable assumption that you might have read the article before asking the question. I don't know that DH85868993's reaction is that unjustifiable. Although it must be said the number of boneheaded mistakes I've made do defy counting. --Falcadore (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Addition of "McMonkey" to articles

I have reverted the addition of "McMonkey" and variations to several articles today. Please keep an eye on this as I have to go to work soon. Britmax (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Relevant editor has been banned, that should cut it down some. --Falcadore (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Content of Red Bull RB10

The Red Bull RB10 article recently went through the AfD process, and the result was that it has been kept. I have since made some extensive changes to the content, as I felt it was entirely inappropriate for the article - most of the content was given over to descriptions of the Renault engine, the one part of the car Red Bull won't actually design, and dramatic quotes from the staff about how extensive the rule changes are without any explanation of how Red Bull are addressing these changes in their design.

However, the changes in content have not gone over well with Fremintug, the user who created the article, and he keeps reverting the changes and demanding a consensus for them. He us currently suspected of being a sock of DeFacto, and his behaviour is very consistent with DeFacto's. If he is DeFacto, though, that means the process is going to be long and gruelling, so I'm hoping people can contribute to the discussion on the article talk page, quickly form a consensus, and end the nonsense before it begins (or at least gfs worse). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

A1-Ring logo.

File:A1-Mobile-Network.gif I've found this logo, Was this the one used by the track. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ayrton Senna

Having some issues with an IP who insists on adding "the greatest driver ever" to Senna's article. He's modified his wording but refuses to discuss and what he's putting doesn't match the source. Would appreciate anyone who wants to help out. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Quantum of Solace-itation

Overnight, there has been an internet posting that examines the Lotus-Quantum deal and suggests that some of the people involved might not be all they seem, with allegations of fraud and other unseemly activities being thrown in. As far as I can tell, it hasn't made its way into any articles just yet, but it's taken hold on Reddit and F1 Fanatic, and it's the kind of thing that editors might rush to include in an article. After all, I once saw someone had edited the 2014 season article to say that Hyundai would enter the sport, and when I checked out the reference given, it was actually a forum post I had written suggesting it was a possibility based on certain observations.

Anyway, I am not expecting this Quantum thing to be a big deal, but I thought I should just put it out there. I remember we had some trouble back in 2009 when Sauber were to be bought out by the QADBAK investment group, but the deal fell apart after a connection was found between QADBAK and a British con artist, and the 2010 season article said as much without any proof. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

2016 Formula One season

2016 Formula One season has been revived, on the basis that it shouldn't have been speedily deleted on the 4th of November because it wasn't sufficiently identical to the version which was previously deleted. I have nominated it for deletion again per WP:TOOSOON. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hernando da Silva Ramos

FYI, an IP editor identifying himself as da Silva Ramos' grandson has provided further input regarding the driver's first name at Talk:Hernando da Silva Ramos#Name. (I thought I'd mention it here because I wasn't sure how many people would be watching the article). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Engine changes

When should the Formula One teams articles have their constructor titles changed like Marussia-Cosworth to Marussia-Ferrari for example. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

When they start using that engine. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Stats

In my opinion this is turning into an obsessive stats site. Anyone else want to try to stem this tide? Britmax (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean "turning"?
I don't know how we get the table writers to do something else. I've come across season articles that you couldn't even tell it was about motor racing. There was a calendar and a points table and aybe aa sentence saying this guy won, but no mention of what type of cars or racing. It was just a.... just a table. --Falcadore (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you think contacting pages as they are created and talking to the table writers about adding context might achieve something? --Falcadore (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Drivers' Championships without Constructors' Championship

There's a discussion in progress at Talk:List_of_Formula_One_driver_records#Drivers.27_Championships_without_Constructors.27_Championship regarding whether or not Kimi Räikkönen technically achieved this feat during the 2007 Formula One season. Please express any views you may have on the matter at the discussion. Thanks. Tvx1 (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

2007 Formula One season

While doing some unrelated research i've noticed that on the articles dealing with the 2007 Australian, Malaysia, Bahrain, Spanish, Monaco, Canadian, United States, French, British, European, Hungarian, Turkish and Italian Grands Prix McLaren isn't included in the table showing the constructors' standings after those races. This is probably due to McLaren later being disqualified from that season's Constructors' Championship later (in-between the Italian and Belgian Grands Prix to be precise). However, this articles deal with a specific day in history and should present the actual facts (e.g. official flags at that time, official circuit names on that day,... ) on that date in time. So shouldn't McLaren be included in those table labelled "Standings After the Race" as they were not yet disqualified at that point? Tvx1 (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

There was an agreement on what they should be done about James Hunt's 1976 points total post-British GP disqualification. I think it was the total after the race in question (hence, until Hunt's DSQ was reinstated, Hunt's British GP points were counted), and if my memory does serve me correctly, the points of McLaren should appear in the races you listed. I don't have the time to look for that discussion right now though. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Good that you mentioned the example of James Hunt. In fact, there's another example from the exact same season, involving James Hunt as well, on how these situations are dealt with. It concerns James Hunt's 1976 points total post-Spanish GP disqualification. It was the total after the race in question (hence, until Hunt's DSQ was overturned, Hunt's Spanish GP point were not counted). That's why I feel the 2007 McLaren situation should be dealt with in the same manner. Tvx1 (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Yep. McLaren should be listed in the constructors' standings tables (with a footnote explaining that they were subsequently excluded from the championship and lost their points) up until the time they lost their points (13 September 2007), in the same way that Tyrrell are listed in the 1984 tables up until the time of their disqualification - see 1984_Brazilian_Grand_Prix#Standings_after_the_race as an example. DH85868993 (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Shortcuts

FYI, WP:F1 no longer leads to our project page - it now leads to a disambiguation page. Likewise WT:F1 no longer leads to this page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the edit summary that I left when removing the hatnote already covered that... although I admittedly didn't notice certain links to the shortcut that I should have removed. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The hatnote made reference to "Wikipedia:F1". I thought it couldn't hurt to explicitly point out that "WP:F1" and "WT:F1" were also affected. DH85868993 (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Formula E WikiProject

Should the brand new racing series FIA Formula E Championship get its own WikiProject because I've already created a few Formula E articles. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If there are enough articles and enough edittors to propell it - a Wikiproject should form naturally. But don't put the cart before the horse. --Falcadore (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

List of current Formula One Grands Prix

I've just become aware of List of current Formula One Grands Prix. I'm wondering whether this article is really necessary - it seems to be an amalgam of parts of List of Formula One circuits and parts of 2013 Formula One season. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. We just need to make sure that the information on `most recent winning driver' remains easily accessible. I also think that a redirect should be put in from this (and related search terms) to List of Formula One circuits. EdwardRussell (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the article is required either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've nominated the article for deletion. Editors are welcome to comment at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The debate has been relisted to generate further discussion. Please express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

2014 numbering system

There is currently a discussion on the 2014 season talk page about how to organise team and driver tables in season articles now that the numbering system has changed. A preliminary consensus has been established, but honestly, the whole thing has been drowned out by the Sergey Sirotkin situation, so I think a lot of people may have missed it the first time around.

The short version is this - there are two proposals up for discussion:

1) To continue to arrange teams sequentially based on whichever driver has the lower number, similar to a V8 Supercars season article.
2) To arrange teams alphabetically based on the Constructor name, with the drivers within that team listed sequentially, similar to an IndyCar season article.

You're invited to contribute at the above-listed discussion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Car number column in 2013 Drivers table

I notice that a "car number" column has been added to {{F1 Drivers Standings}} (which currently contains the 2013 Drivers' Championship table, and is transcluded into 2013 Formula One season). Do we like this? (I thought I would ask here because I wasn't sure how many people would have that template on their watchlist). DH85868993 (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not keen on it, but it might be necessary in 2014 to help identify cars in the constructors' table, since numbers will be unique to the driver. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Sergey Sirotkin

There has been a very long and tedious debate at Talk:2014 Formula One season with regard to the inclusion of Sergey Sirotkin on the list of 2014 F1 drivers. We would appreciate further input so that we might come to a speedy conclusion. There is a precis of the argument here. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Shared cars in 1950s entry lists

Entry lists have recently been added to several 1950s F1 race reports (e.g. 1952 French Grand Prix#Entries). I notice that for cars which were shared in the race, both drivers are listed in the entry list (e.g. cars 16 and 34 in the listed example). Is this correct? Or should the entry list only list the driver who started the race in that car (i.e. the car's "nominated" driver)? DH85868993 (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason that both drivers are listed is because the sources consulted list them as such (e.g. [11] lists both #16 and #34 as two drivers and [12] includes two drivers for #34). However, I have no objection if others agree that this should be changed. deaþe/gecweald (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem is working out who the reliable sources are. While both the listed sources are great for results, I'm not so sure about entry lists. Just because two drivers shared a car in a race doesn't mean they were both enetered in that car initially. To be able to give a reliable entry list you either need a copy of the FIA circular issued on the day (not realistic for anything pre-internet) or a copy of the relevant race program. In my experience StatsF1.com is commonly the best as far as this goes. Certainly the entry list they give for the 1952 French GP is much more detailed than either of the others. It would obviously be best to use race programs only, but my feeling is that we should be using StatsF1 backed by contemporary sources (e.g. Motor Sport etc.) where possible. Pyrope 22:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Even if StatsF1 is to be taken as the main source (where contemporary ones are unavailable), it still does not solve the question of whether multiple drivers should be included for the same cars on entry lists, or if not, which drivers should be listed. The French GP entry list that you cite has Hirt/Fischer listed as entrants of a single car (in this case #36, as opposed to #34 which most other sources suggest), as well as two entrants for cars #12, #28 and #30, and a number of substitute drivers. In the case of #36 (if StatsF1 is to be believed) it appears that Hirt was initially entered in that car, while Fischer (who was originally due to drive #34) ended up driving it in the race. Landi was initially entered in car #30, but withdrew his entry, and Trintignant drove a different car bearing the same number in qualifying and the race. In the cases of #12 and #28 there is no indication as to which drivers were originally due to drive the cars. The explanations given on the results page of the same site are that Villoresi was injured and Cantoni was fired, but nowhere does it explicitly state that either were initially intended to drive their respective cars (later being replaced).
Ultimately, I am not convinced that StatsF1 is any more reliable than the other sources, just because it is more detailed. In some cases the extra details seem to complicate the issue further! Besides, I tend to find that the other sources (the ones I cited earlier) are more reliable as far as entrant names and chassis and engine designations are concerned (and they invariably agree with each other), but that is just my opinion.
As the various sources contradict each other in places, I would suggest that there are two possible logical solutions to the issue of shared drives on entry lists: either 1) all drivers who drove a car, or were entered to drive a car, should be listed; or 2) only the driver who qualified or started the race in a particular car should be listed (with a possibility of using post-table notes to denote other drivers who drove, or were due to drive, the same car). I would probably favour the latter option, as it seems simpler and avoids having excessively cluttered tables. deaþe/gecweald (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd also support listing just the driver who qualified or started the race in a particular car, with footnotes where considered necessary. Regarding the alternative of listing all drivers who were entered to drive a car, my understanding is that in the 1950s and 1960s, teams used to just enter the car, and they could put in the car whoever they pleased - or at the very least they entered all their drivers in each car (given the way they seemed to be able to swap drivers at will), which would make the entry tables unnecessarily long. DH85868993 (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Archive_40&oldid=1142516121"