Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 44

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

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

→

Year to year engine supplier

Lately, there has been a lot of chatter regarding engine supplier sources needing to say the specific year in question when it comes to supplying a team. It is my belief that, until a new source comes out stating otherwise, we go by what the sources say. While I agree that "multi-year" is vague and, by definition, can only truly apply to the current year and next (the bare minimum of "multi"), something like the McLaren source I added which states 10-year contract has to be used and we can't speculate that the contract won't run its course. Only if something new develops can we change it or remove it. Twirlypen (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That should not be a problem. I don't think anyone is going to challenge content that supported by source that provides specific information. T v x1 15:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say multi-year is a separate discussion, a multi-year contract for a driver is only one year, with the option to add another, but they aren't guaranteed an extra year, nor may they take the extra year, so for drivers, I think anyone on a mutli-year contract should just be given the one confirmed year. As for the engines, I thought it was obvious some of the teams like Williams and Mercedes had longer contracts with engine suppliers, but some users are insisting on definite dates, which I find a bit extreme so, personally, I'd say put some engines back in place, but others will say otherwise until a definite source is proven, for whatever reason, they're only going to have to put the engine back in again. CDRL102 (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Formula One video games nominated for deletion

FYI, Formula One video games has been nominated for deletion. The deletion discussion is here. DH85868993 (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

2017 Formula One season nominated for deletion

FYI, 2017 Formula One season has been nominated for deletion. The deletion discussion is here. T v x1 21:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

formula1.com dead links

‎Alaynestone's recent efforts updating the References section of the F1 race report articles have highlighted that all the links to the race results pages at www.formula1.com have been dead for several months now. Does anyone know if formula1.com are planning to restore these pages to their site any time soon? Alternatively, is there an easy way to convert all these links to links to archived versions of the page (e.g. at http://archive.org/)? If we could convert the links into actual references (i.e. using a {{cite}} template) at the same time, that would probably also be worth doing). DH85868993 (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that, even if the FOM eventually restore the content, the urls will probably be different and the current links will redirect to F1's main page in the best case scenario, or will show a "404" error. There were bots automatically archiving urls used on Wikipedia citations, but I don't know if they are still working following the "archive.is" affaire. I don't think a bot did archiving and reference formatting simultaneously. But yeah, it would be interesting if we can find a way of automatically searching archived versions of the current urls in, for example, the Internet Archive, I think that's the only way of saving the references as they are. Thoughts? --Urbanoc (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of any better solution, I might just go through and update the articles manually (any make any other necessary minor corrections while I'm there). I'll probably start in about 12 hours time. DH85868993 (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, OK, let me know if I can help you somehow. --Urbanoc (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hang on, DH85868993, there is a tool we could use: Checklinks. The problem with it is that it also unwantedly changes table markup. Since the creator is not eager to remove the unwanted functionality, I raised the issue at WP:ANI. I'd suggest we await the outcome of that discussion before making any changes.T v x1 01:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

After the experience of the "background colours not displaying on mobile devices" issue, where we waited months for others to provide a solution and then I ended up fixing the articles myself anyway, I'm inclined to just make a start. Even if Checklinks can provide the archive URLs, it won't add a "Source" line to the bottom of the race results table, which is what I'm planning to do. DH85868993 (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

DH85868993, Checklinks can be used. You just have to make sure to uncheck "apply common fixes" in the tools user preferences. T v x1 11:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Formula One drivers who never qualified for a race nominated for deletion

FYI, List of Formula One drivers who never qualified for a race has been nominated for deletion. DH85868993 (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Whoever tagged this didn't do it properly, as there is no discussion forum regarding it, and I don't know how to fix it. Twirlypen (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

They did do it properly, it's just that they prodded the article, rather than taking it to WP:AfD (as was done in the case of Formula One video games, for example). WP:PROD is a simpler process whereby an editor nominates an article for deletion, and if nobody objects to the article being deleted it may be deleted automatically after 7 days. On the other hand, anyone who objects to the article being deleted can simply remove the {{prod}} template and that terminates the process (the {{prod}} template may not be reapplied). Of course, if the "prod" is defeated, the article may subsequently be taken to WP:AfD, after which it might be deleted, depending on the outcome of the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for explaining! Twirlypen (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The explanation can be found in the actual tag as well. T v x1 07:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep, definitely an oversight on my part. My mistake. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 07:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

McLaren MP4-30

A discussion has developped over the inclusion of an image in the McLaren MP4-30 article. You can weigh in your opinion at Talk:McLaren MP4-30. T v x1 16:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Current F1 COTW nominated for deletion

FYI, Template:Current F1 COTW has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is here. DH85868993 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

FYI, there's a discussion at Talk:List of Formula One driver records#Flag icons regarding the use of flag icons in that article. DH85868993 (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Tables

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T105596

As it appears, since this season, all Formula One articles seem to use another sort of tables as they did before. I didn't really like the new ones because I felt the font was too small, but what could I do? But now, the borders keep disappearing in the tables alltogether. Sometimes they are there, sometimes they're not, and if that it the case, I can barely read them, because it is hard to keep you eye in one line. It looks like in the thumb....

Why was the decision made to change them and why does the thing with the borders happen and how do I make sure it does not happen anymore? Can someone please help me out? It's driving me crazy! Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

First two questions. Does that happen on mobile or on desktop? And which browser do you use? T v x1 12:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Desktop and Firefox (happens both in windowed mode and maximised). Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Done the check and can confirm that issue occurs. We have received reports before that Firefox has difficulties with the tables. It's more a browser issue, rather than an issue with the content. For further technical assistance, you'd better go to WP:VPT. That's were the people with the technical knowledge are. The guys over here are more concerned with content. The only thing I can do is to suggest to use a different browser.

The core problem are the mobile tables though. In the old format their borders were next-to-invisible. Hence why Prisonermonkeys introduced this new format, but as you can see that causes even more problems. So I decided to propose to have the mobile tables fixed, but it got thrown out. I even raised a RFC for it and advertised the discussion over here, but nobody bothered to go over there to weigh in their opinion. Just take a look this:

A a group of wikitables in a rally article on the desktop site

The same tables on the mobile site

I really fail to understand how people can say the mobile tables are just fine. You can hardly see them. T v x1 13:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

On the Android app, the new tables work OK, the borders are well visible. But the old tables work better, especially concerning column width. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Village pump has a clear view on this, we should go back to using wikitables (see here). I support this. Please state your opinion. If we find a consensus on this, I will start changing the tables in the race reports accordingly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, if we do that mobile tables will be barely visible like in my above example. Mobile wikitables are programmed to have very, very light borders. T v x1 16:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel that that is too bad. Also, as I said, on the mobile app those tables work a lot better. Of course the app is a nightmare for editors, but for just viewing the site, it works well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. The mobile wikitables are absolutely not better to see. Just take look at the tables in this link and this link and tell me which is better. T v x1 16:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

We are not disagreeing ;) I am simply talking about a different aspect. I am not talking about the mobile view in a tablet browser (en.m.wikipedia...), but about the app. And in the app, the old wikitables are better than the new ones. If the display of the wikitables on mobile websites is bad, then maybe that should be taken to Village pump seperately? Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see you already did that. So forget that last part :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes the Wikipedia app. Now I'm on track with your reasoning. I wasn't talking about that. I'm concerned about their look in mobile browsers. T v x1 17:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

To push this discussion forward: I believe that if it is true that the new tables are only better on mobile browsers and the old ones are better in regular browsers and the mobile app, then it's safe to say that using the old tables will benefit the larger number of viewers. So I propose to go back to the old wikitables. Please give your vote on this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Just how does making tables more difficult to see for the entire mobile readership benefit a larger number of viewers than having tables that only cause problems for Firefox users? Before we revert any tables we should fit the raised problems tables using the "wikitable" class have on the mobile site. T v x1 12:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

1) I assume the number of readers using Firefox on desktop and the mobile app is larger than the number of users using mobile browsers. I cannot prove that of course. 2) The wikitable issue is more likely to be fixed. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I am at an iPhone right now. in mobile view, you are right, the borders are very light. BUT: When I change to desktop view on the iPhone, the new tables don't work well either, cause they reach over the width of the article borders. Yet another argument for switching back! Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I too almost exclusively use mobile. However, I also almost exclusively switch to desktop mode even on my android chrome browser. Mobile mode cuts far too many features and makes editing and discussing a terrible pain. The wikipedia app is even worse! The entire mobile experience needs a second look. Twirlypen (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

No questions there. For editors, it's a pain... Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a frame in the top right corner of this discussion with a link to a report to the developers who are working to fix the problem with the mobile wikitables. We just have to be patient now. Once they fixed it we can revert to the wikitable class. T v x1 19:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have upgraded my computer to Windows 10 now. On the right you see the new weird thing that happens with our current tables in Firefox. It is really time to finally switch back to Wiki tables as fast as possible please!! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, I just realized that that happens with the wiki tables as well... damnit... Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, if you take another look at the link I provided in the top right corner of this section, you'll see that they finally made a fix. It is a matter of days until it wil deployed to the whole site and we can finally switch back to wikitables. You seed, all we need is patience.T v x1 16:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, happy day :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"Manor Marussia" article

It was agreed through consensus that a separate article for "Manor Marussia" would be created but so far it hasn't even been thought of since, I would make it myself if I wasn't such a sloppy editor. Speedy Question Mark (talk 19:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I made a crude start to it using information gathered from the Manor Motorsports article and it's 2015 season section. Whether they can be removed from Manor Motorsport's article, I'll leave to the community. I'm no good at moving sections of tables either.

Also, I made it using the official team name Manor Marussia F1 Team. Twirlypen (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The Manor Marussia F1 article seems to be fairly well developed now. @Twirlypen:, @Speedy Question Mark: What's the plan going forward?:

To transfer the 2015 results from Manor Motorsport into this article? (and remove the "Complete Formula One World Championship results" table from Manor Motorsport, leaving just the "Results/Formula One" summary table?)
To change all 2015 "Manor" and "Manor Marussia" (and "Marussia"?) links to point to the new article instead of Manor Motorsport (and Marussia)? If so, I'm happy to make those changes using AWB.

DH85868993 (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say Manor ~~Marussia~~ Motorsports should have a complete table (2010-current), while each of the individual incarnation of the teams would have their own, like Virgin F1, Marussia F1, and Manor Marussia, and so on if there are more. And yes, Manor Marussia links should now go to Manor Marussia F1 now. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 04:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the links and copied the 2015 results into Manor Marussia F1. I've left the existing results tables in Manor Motorsport. DH85868993 (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

On a different note: Since the question has been raised at the GA review for the British GP: In our tables for 2015, we call the team Marussia. Should we also be calling them Marussia in the prose? Or rather Manor? Or Manor-Marussia? I would prefer a short form. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I raised the issue earlier in the season, with an offered proposal, for sole sake of clarity here in the 2015 talk page, which has since been archived. As you can see, it got no responses but seems to be an issue now. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I do agree that while I would prefer using the shorter "Manor", it will be less confusing to the reader if we call the team Manor Marussia, so it doesn't clash with the constructor name in the result tables. I will start changing the race reports accordingly today. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the Sky Sports F1 team consistently refer to the team as "Manor Marussia". DH85868993 (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, as I pointed out in the GA review link above, it should always be "Manor Marussia", not "Manor-Marussia". The dash does not exist on the entry sheet. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Formula One safety cars

FYI, A List of Formula One safety cars has been created. T v x1 16:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tvx1 is it the practice for such new articles to be the subject of a discussion on this page? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes. If it's uncertain whether the subject of the article is notable enough to warrant a specific article. T v x1 04:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Article importance assessment scale

I'll go ahead and bring it up. Apparently my recent edits updating recent articles to this chart have caused a little bit of a stir. While I am in no way resisting a discussion of possibly updating these criteria, at the same time, I feel I am being jumped at for what is plainly stated as being agreed. Now, I get that this was probably written 5+ years ago, with very few members involved still active today. SO, please, instead of lashing out at me, discuss! Thanks. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 04:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Where exactly were you lashed out at? Can you give a link so we can see the arguments? Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

My talk page, specifically. For a seasoned editor, I was a little take aback as it almost came across like they were oblivious to this scale's existance in the first place before I pointed it out. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 07:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Lashed out? Bloody hell. I pointed out that it is ridiculous to suggest that a racetrack with the history of the Nurburgring is rated Low-Importance and the response I get is:

What's ridiculous is the sense of hierarchy by some members of the Wikipedia F1 community. Please do not impose your own criteria over that which the community agreed upon. Conceding to TOP which still falls within the guideline.

So, not only did Twirlypen actually agree after the fact, I get accused of lashing out?

Please just stop. The issue was Nurburgring is not of low importance - you actually agreed. Why not just stop? --Falcadore (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel that in the example at hand (Nürburgring), no change is needed. The circuit has a "Exceptional historical importance" to F1 and motorsports in general, so it should be Top importance. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Twirlypen, you need to know that the scale you use is a guideline. It's not something you must rigidly apply black or white to every article. There will be articles which form exceptions and are really on the line between two levels on the scale. That's where you have to use your common sense to decide which level it gets. T v x1 15:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. That's why this was brought up. The question was if the scale was rigid? Does the criteria need updating? What qualifies as a "Top" car article? And Falcadore, if the way you presented yourself and your tone on my talk page was anything, it was definately a lash-out and a suggestion that I am on some sort of rogue mission to sabotage the entire rating system – at least, that's how I perceived it. If that wasn't what you meant, then I apologize. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 03:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel that the scale makes a lot of sense as it stands. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but if I would change anything, it'd be the criteria for cars. What car would qualify as having exceptional historical significance? In going back to 2008, the only one I could remotely consider was Brawn's car in 2009 simply for being a championship winner in its only year. But even that was a stretch, because lots of cars win championships in their only year of entry (as most cars are only entered for one season anyway). I'd propose to change that to maybe, off the top of my head, Low = Other, Mid = 1+ Race wins/5+ combined podiums if tracked, High = 5+ Race wins/10+ combined podiums if tracked, Top = Championship winner. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You have a point there. Since the regulations are so strict nowadays, technical revolutions that make historic cars like the Lotus 78 are unlikely today. The scale should therefore consider performance more. The two Mercedes cars of the past two years should certainly qualify as "top" importance, considering their crushing dominance. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Save for maybe two or three cars of the past, it just seems like the Top importance is functionally obsolete for car articles. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Currently, there are 5 Top importance car articles: the aforementioned Lotus 25 (14 wins out of 49 races entered between 1962-1967 by 2 different constructors), the Lotus 49 (12 wins out of 42 races entered between 1967-1970 by several constructors), the Lotus 79 (7 wins out of 26 races entered between 1978-1979 by 2 different constructors), the McLaren MP4/4 (statistically the most successful single season car in F1 history), and the Williams FW14 (17 wins out of 32 races entered between 1991-1992).

Aside from the McLaren, it appears previous criteria was succussful cars used by more than one team for more than one season - which as can be seen, doesn't seem to have happened since the late 70s. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a good time for another post mortem kudos to Colin Chapman. What a guy! Aynway, I don't think that how many teams used a car for how long plays into it, but in the instances you give, 4 cars are technical milestones and one (the McLaren) very successful. If we follow that rule, the Ferrari F2004, the Red Bull RB9 and the Mercedes F1 W05 Hybrid should probably also get a Top ranking. Certainly some others as well, but those are the first that pop into my head. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Ferrari F2002 probably figures in that list as well. T v x1 15:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Since I have heard no one yell No, I've applied the class changes. Feel free to discuss them on the respective talk pages. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Strive for consistency

I recall (and applaud) not so long ago, a move to render F1 season articles more consistent with one another. At the risk of being shot down again, I just added a See also section as follows:

I did that because some of the earlier (1990s or 1970s) season articles have it but I have since noticed that from there to the present, the majority do not have this section. As a result, do delete if you feel strongly opposed. I added it in good faith until I realised the above.

Be that as it may, that exercise has also alerted me to the fact that there are inconsistency yet again in the form of some articles having a Footnotes section that should really be References (I have revised those I caught, thanks to doing the above addition). And I also noticed that some have Notes while others have Footnotes. If we're (you longer term F1 editors) are striving for consistency, these sections are other areas for review.

Why in the world is the list of safety cars relevant enough to include in every season article? And why would you knowingly removing the {{Portal}} templates that already exist on several articles solely to justify the existence of a See Also section for your list of safety cars?

Are you raising this point because of inconsistencies or because you want to put safety cars in the articles yet again? The³5₉ (Talk) 18:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There is also not a single Formula One season article with a See Also section, with exception of 1994 which linked to stories relevant to events that occured during the 1994 season, so what exactly are you making consistent? The³5₉ (Talk) 18:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to relax with your obsession about this and be more constructive or not at all, especially with your edit reasons The359. I was pointing out inconsistencies in other sections, which would have been obvious if you were more objesctive. And read above about the deletion suggestion. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC) AS AN ASIDE, you seem to dislike the Tatra 623. Would help if you researched things prior to deletions, so here's a footnote to a pic of the 1986 safety cars at the Hungaroring - pit straight[1]. You may be referring to the one that hit Taki Inoue? That was a medical car and probably a T-613 instead. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Not only is List of Formula One safety cars not an appropriate link for a See Also section, but you had in numerous articles redundant links to the Formula One Portal because you completely missed the {{Portal|Formula One}} template that was already in use not even five lines away in many instances.

Is this a discussion of safety cars or of inconsistencies in articles? The³5₉ (Talk) 09:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I am all for consistency in the season articles, but those two additions do seem redundant. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

We have long formed concensus that safety car information does not belong in the season report articles. Ergo, why would a link to a list of them be relevant or helpful? The purpose of a "See also" section is to direct readers to relevant information to the article they had just read. It's impractical to give them links for something they read nothing about, and I agree with other contributors in that the inclusion of the portal link is an thinly veiled attempt at justifying the section altogether. At best, this list may have a place in the Lists section on the portal, which I see is already there, and perhaps moreso from the safety car page, which ~~somehow it's not~~ is there as a sectional "see also". Per what links here, these are, rightfully so, the only two actual article spaces linking to it. The rest have been added to that list via bots and unnecessary header linking on user talk pages. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Formula One Promotional Trophy winners

I was thinking should it be worth of mention that the Race Promoters Trophy has been won very often by new or returning events in the calendar? I copied the table below and bolded all winners which were a) new b) returning after long break (basically ignoring one-year hiatus like rotation of British GP between Brands Hatch and Silverstone) c) changed location

Race Promoters Trophy

Year	Grand Prix	Circuit
2014	Russian Grand Prix	Sochi
2013	Brazilian Grand Prix	Interlagos
2012	Indian Grand Prix	Buddh
2011	Indian Grand Prix	Buddh
2010	Korean Grand Prix	Yeongam
2009	Abu Dhabi Grand Prix	Yas Marina
2008	Singapore Grand Prix	Marina Bay
2007	United States Grand Prix	Indianapolis
2006	Brazilian Grand Prix	Interlagos
2005	Monaco Grand Prix	Monte Carlo
2004	Bahrain Grand Prix	Sakhir
2003	Spanish Grand Prix	Catalunya
2002	Hungarian Grand Prix	Hungaroring
2001	Canadian Grand Prix	Montreal
2000	United States Grand Prix	Indianapolis
1999	Malaysian Grand Prix	Sepang
1998	San Marino Grand Prix	Imola
1997	Australian Grand Prix	Melbourne
1996	Australian Grand Prix	Melbourne
1995	Australian Grand Prix	Adelaide
1994	Pacific Grand Prix	TI Circuit Aida
1993	European Grand Prix	Donington
1992	French Grand Prix	Magny-Cours
1991	French Grand Prix	Magny-Cours
1990	Australian Grand Prix	Adelaide
1989	Japanese Grand Prix	Suzuka
1988	British Grand Prix	Silverstone
1987	Japanese Grand Prix	Suzuka
1986	Mexican Grand Prix	Mexico City
1985	Australian Grand Prix	Adelaide
1984	Detroit Grand Prix	Detroit
1983	Italian Grand Prix	Monza
1982	British Grand Prix	Brands Hatch
1981	Caesars Palace Grand Prix	Las Vegas
1980	Italian Grand Prix	Imola
1979	Italian Grand Prix	Monza
1978	British Grand Prix	Brands Hatch
1977	British Grand Prix	Silverstone
1976	United States Grand Prix West	Long Beach
1975	Monaco Grand Prix	Monte Carlo

BleuDXXXIV (talk) 06:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You mean like, in the actual calendar in the season article? So that it may look something like this:

Round	Grand Prix	Circuit	Date
1	Australian Grand Prix	Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit, Melbourne	15 March
2	Malaysian Grand Prix	Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur	29 March
3	Chinese Grand Prix	Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai	12 April
4	Bahrain Grand Prix	Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir	19 April
5	Spanish Grand Prix	Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, Barcelona	10 May
6	Monaco Grand Prix	Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo	24 May
7	Canadian Grand Prix	Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal	7 June
8	Austrian Grand Prix	Red Bull Ring, Spielberg	21 June
9	British Grand Prix	Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone	5 July
10	Hungarian Grand Prix	Hungaroring, Budapest	26 July
11	Belgian Grand Prix	Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Stavelot	23 August
12	Italian Grand Prix	Autodromo Nazionale Monza, Monza	6 September
13	Singapore Grand Prix	Marina Bay Street Circuit, Singapore	20 September
14	Japanese Grand Prix	Suzuka Circuit, Suzuka	27 September
15	Russian Grand Prix	Sochi Autodrom, Sochi	11 October
16	United States Grand Prix	Circuit of the Americas, Austin, Texas	25 October
17	Mexican Grand Prix¹	Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez, Mexico City	1 November
18	Brazilian Grand Prix	Autódromo José Carlos Pace, São Paulo	15 November
19	Abu Dhabi Grand Prix	Yas Marina Circuit, Abu Dhabi	29 November
Sources:

^1 Event/venue was winner of the Race Promoters Trophy for excellence in event organization.(reference here)

No, I was rather meaning that it could be mentioned here: List of Formula One Promotional Trophy winners BleuDXXXIV (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a small alteration like that, as it wouldn't take a great deal of time to implement. It is an FIA award after all, right? Which is why we include the Pole Trophy in the infobox? Twirlypen (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Unlike the other awards, ie WDC, WCC, Pole and DHL Fastest Lap award, I never knew of this award, so I would question it's notability, also may I add, could we add the Fastest Lap award to the infobox? CDRL102 (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm neither for nor against the adding of additional FIA awards to the articles, but if it's agreed that they should be added, I will suggest that they NOT go in the infobox. That area is mainly for the two major awards, the WDC & WCC. The Pole is fine there for now, but adding two more would just make it too cluttered. If it's agreed that the other two are added, I'd suggest removing Pole from the infobox and placing it elsewhere in the article with the Fastest Lap & Race Promoter's Trophy. The WDC & WCC are significant awards that reward winners with something of substantial value. The other three are seemingly just for accomplishments with no prize of physical value - simply a "pat on the back" or an "atta boy". Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Not true. The winners of the Fastest lap award, for instance, receive a physical trophy for there efforts. T v x1 12:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

What I meant was that it has no particular value other than an achievement award. Compared to WCC/WDC, the incentive is relatively minimal. No one is referred to years later in passing as "the 2009 Fastest lap champion..." or what have you. The physical trophy is really all it is. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

New article

Project members may be interested in recently created article F1 race rights. DH85868993 (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

What is this?? I first thought it is about which television station owns the right to broadcast F1 in which country. But it is simply about which race is shown where in the UK!?!? Jesus Christ... what significance does that have? I will nominate for deletion. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Not required. Eagleash (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

We have List of Formula One broadcasters, and that contains more than enough information. This is unnecessary. QueenCake (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Tables II

Opening a new section so that it is easier to keep track of... According to the tech guys, the mobile view problem with wikitables is supposed to be fixed since yesterday. Can anyone confirm this? If so, I move to switch back all race reports and the season article to the old wikitable format. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see it is fixed. Might ask Prisonermonkeys as well, as they are one of the users who have been most vocal about the mobile tbales' problems. T v x1 13:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what was scheduled to be fixed, so it's hard to say how well it has bern done. The tables certainly appear different, but we still need extensive use of nowraps and non-breaking spaces—especially when including a flag with text in a nowrap—so the changes appear to be cosmetic. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Which tables did you look at? You need to look at tables using the wikitable class, like at 2013 Formula One season. The tables in the 2015 article don't use that class and will not have changed. The wikitables' borders have become darker and header colours have returned. T v x1 12:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at Red Bull RB11. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

1976 Formula One Conterversy (sic)

I notice the recent creation of Talk:1976 Formula One Conterversy (and the identical Talk:1976 f1 conterversy). Do people think the topic is worthy of an article, or should I nominate them for deletion? (Not canvassing, just keen to avoid the effort associated with a deletion discussion if there's clear support for retention). DH85868993 (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Since there are only talk pages and no actual articles, they should be deleted anyway. Moreover there are no sources. It just is a summing up op events made to look like the entire season (i.e. the championship) were controversial. T v x1 14:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why this cannot be dealt with in the season article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

They have been deleted under CSD:G8. Problem solved. DH85868993 (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Another new article

Also recently created: List of Formula One safety cars‎ - a list article of which the content has been discussed and deleted at least twice before in different formats in other articles. --Falcadore (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion you refer to was about details of safety cars in existing F1 season articles not as a stand-alone article as it now exists. Given your nationality and automotive enthusiasm going by your username, what's the difference between such a list and say List of Holden vehicles and similar even in non-automotive fields (e.g. List of Harley-Davidson motorcycles)? Should similar lists not be deleted also going by your logic? Despite your personal dislike or bias, at least as a passionate F1 fan like others, surely you are in no position to deny that Safety Cars are part and parcel of Formula 1 (and its 1990s suite of safety initiatives) and subject to the specific rules (see this and Rule 40 and every other reference therein)? If it were as trivial and unimportant as I think you seem to continue arguing, those cars would not exist and neither the FIA nor F1 outlets would dedicate articles to it - see this. And to point to more importance or relevance (without me being expert enough to quote your beloved WP objections), in some cases (e.g. Senna's crash) the very type of safety car used has been the subject of F1 literature and discussions. I do not understand why you misleadingly try to mix the prior discussion of safety car info in existing articles vs a whole new article as it now stands. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Your arguments only support discussing safety cars somewhere in the project. And we do just that at Safety Car. It does not support having a full detailed list of every Safety Car every used (year per year even though some were used over multiple years). That's overkill. One or two particular Safety Cars being particularly notable doesn't justify listing all the others as well. If a particular Safety Car is given particular attention in the scope of a particular Grand Prix, than we mention that in that Grand Prix' article. You are using the notability of a fraction of your content to justify listing other hardly notable contant. T v x1 15:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Care to explain the difference with lists such as List of Pontiac vehicles as another random example? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

May I ask, did you compile the list of cars utilised yourself? I ask because of WP:Original research, which summed up means if no-one else anywhere notable as a WP:Reliable source has listed this data, then it should not be included in wikipedia. If no-one else thinks it is notable, then it fails notability.

So, did you compile this list yourself? --Falcadore (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You may and you would already know the answer or it should be obvious being an experienced user - go to the history of the Safety Car article and see how many other users contributed to it - [2]. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia can not be used as its own reliable source. What other wikipedia edittors have written does not count towards notability. Anyone outside of wikipedia? --Falcadore (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Future replies on the deletion page you caused, if on topic. There you will find many references with which you can answer your question (against your position and interest, unfortunately). CtrlXctrlV (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI, the article has been nominated for deletion. T v x1 16:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There, you will see an impartial and experienced reviewer is buffled by the above nomination. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you please stop saying "impartial". Substantiate bias accusations or follow WP:Assume good faith would be appreciated.

Disagreeing with you consistently on a single issue where the majority of involved editors have agreed with me does not even land in the proximity of bias. --Falcadore (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

My proposal would just be to mention that seasons safety car in the introduction to the page. CDRL102 (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

That would be sensible and only a single line, but there are counter views on that too. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The article has been deleted. T v x1 16:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

British English template

It's probably a mundane task if not able to be completed by a bot, but what would the feasability be of adding the {{British English}} template to the major Formula One article talk pages? By major, I mean the season articles, cars, race reports, teams, significant drivers (leaving out drivers that may have had more success elsewhere or in different disciplines outside of motorsport altogether that wouldn't fall under the BE scope), team personnel, etc...?

This page is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 05:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually usually write my reports in American English. Is there a consensus to use BE? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Over the months/years of people unknowingly correcting "tyres" to "tires", and getting the talk that the Wiki Formula One community has a concensus on BE, I thought this was already the case. "Merecedes's" which we use, vs "Mercedes'" which we don't use is also another prime example of British English taking precedence. If there's any confusion, I agree that it should be BE. Formula One, even in American events, is primarily a European (British) showcase. Obviously events like the Indy 500 wouldn't be affected by this, since it was actually very rare that a full time F1 driver or team drove in the event (I think it happened once, ever?). Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Um, Lotus won the Indy 500 in 1965 with Jim Clark: Graham Hill won it in 1966 but with a Lola. Just off top of my head. Many other instances of entries by contemporary F1 teams and / or drivers. Point still remains with geo-specific variations though. Eagleash (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Eagleash: I suspect Twirlypen was referring to the period during which the Indy 500 was a round of the World Championship (i.e. 1950-1960).

If there are specific articles which regularly suffer changes in contravention of WP:ENGVAR, then it might be worth tagging their talk pages. But I'm not sure that pre-emptive tagging of non-problem articles is necessary. I suspect that tagging the talk pages of US Grand Prix race reports or US F1 Team with {{British English}} could cause more problems than it solves. DH85868993 (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to do BE from now on. If I fail to do something correctly, feel free to correct me. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The point would still apply to Indy 500 articles for the later races, when many more European teams entered. Eagleash (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. DH85868993 (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Not really. I don't think there really is a case for using British English on the Indy 500 articles. The Indianapolis 500 has always been an American race in any way. It has always been held by American organizers on an American track (Indianapolis of course) as part of an American racing category (AAA, USAC, CART, IRL). Even when drivers and constructors from the 50s and 60s' F1 World Championship entered the Indy 500 as well because it was part of the World Championship, they didn't do so with their F1 cars, but with purpose-build cars for that one race. T v x1 12:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, when I wrote "Indeed", I was agreeing with Eagleash's point that there are "Many other instances of entries (at Indianapolis) by contemporary F1 teams and / or drivers"; I wasn't suggesting/agreeing that any Indy 500 articles should be changed to use British English or tagged with the template, which I don't believe Twirlypen was proposing in the first place - I interpreted the statement "Obviously events like the Indy 500 wouldn't be affected by this" to mean "Obviously, we wouldn't change any Indy 500 articles to use British English or tag them with the template". DH85868993 (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. How about the different US Grand Prixs though? Some might argue that since it is an event in the US, it should be written in AE. I would not agree though. During the GA review for 2015 Canadian Grand Prix it was suggested to use Canadian English, which I refused. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No. They are just rounds of an european racing class, contested by mostly european constructors, officiated by an european governing body (FIA), broadcasted by an european producer (FOM). T v x1 13:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you'll find some US Grand Prix articles are already written in American English (notice "tires" in 1973 United States Grand Prix). Changing them to use British English would violate WP:ENGVAR (specifically WP:RETAIN and WP:TIES). DH85868993 (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, what you cite there are style guidelines, not laws or even policies. "Violating" is an inappropriate wording here. Secondly, I don't see how either of them would object a change. WP:TIES simply says that it's good to write some articles in a variety of English relevant to the subject. British english can be claimed to be the relevant variety here just as much. WP:RETAIN states that when an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it should (note should, not must) be maintained if there is no consensus to do otherwise. So as long as it's discussed and consensus is achieved to use British English that's just fine. T v x1 15:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR, and the whole MOS, tends to be taken quite seriously by some. I wouldn't really recommend getting into a discussion over wording, unless you've got a week you don't mind losing.

I think we just need to be sensible over the English variety we use. Most articles will use British English, probably because that's how the majority of us write, and generally that will be perfectly fine. A few will use other variants (I'm not aware of how different some of the varieties actually are, but apparently they are distinct) like American drivers who made a guest appearance in a Grand Prix, and that will also be fine. There will be some articles where an argument could be made either way, but we can deal with that discussion as and when it comes up. QueenCake (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tvx1: You are quite correct about WP:RETAIN. You're welcome to start one or more properly advertised (by which I mean either occurring or advertised at the talk pages of the affected articles) discussions proposing that US Grand Prix articles (and any other articles you fancy) which are currently written using American English be changed to use British English instead. However, as QueenCake suggests, you should not be surprised if you encounter some resistance to the idea. DH85868993 (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Caterham CT03

Am I alone in thinking that the amount of information being added to the infobox in this, and other, articles, is well past an excessive level? Surely the infobox is meant to provide an "at-a-glance" overview of the article subject and as such detailed info like "component X machined from a solid piece of steel" and brake pad sizes etc. are going a bit far. The infobox is longer that the body of the article as things stand.

On another note; regarding the San Marino flag issue, the various European Grands Prix articles seem to display the flag of the host nation. I.e. UK when Brands hosted, Spain for Barcelona, etc. Don't know if this helps at all really. :P Eagleash (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, come on, it's TheriusRooney again. We have already discussed this and achieved consensus no to include so much detail four months ago. The exact same article was involved back then. They are fully aware of that. They have done it to all articles on Caterham F1 cars, by the way. T v x1 06:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes that discussion had slipped my mind, not least because it quickly moved away from the original point, which still remains a valid one. If consensus has been reached I am not sure why the situation has been allowed to continue (or what, if anything, could be done to try to control it). Eagleash (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Has this been reverted already? If not, it should be. T v x1 16:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, just saw that page. Far, far to much detail. JohnMcButts (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It's the same at Caterham CT01 and Caterham CT05. T v x1 18:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Should we take some action since he's not listening? He's made similar (excessive, but not as excessive as the Caterham cars) to Red Bull RB9 and Red Bull RB10. Zappa 24 Mati 02:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

We should revert their actions and leave them a kind notice referring to the consensus not to provide so much detail. If they persist we can then refer them to the administrators. T v x1 12:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone going to take a look at this? All the time, TheriusRooney keeps adding more and more details to these articles. T v x1 20:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

This is what I meant by nobody wanting to make the first move after a discussion. I'll start by tagging TheriusRooney. If the discussion has already occured and they participated in it, and is actively ignoring concensus, then I doubt they will listen again. But, as we should assume good faith, we'll see if they voice a reasonable argument for such detailed inclusion. If ignorance continues, either revert the changes or report to admins. Twirlypen (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User has not been active since being tagged. Not currently ignoring this discussion. Twirlypen (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

In the mean time, the user has contributed yet declined to comment here. By the way I'm starting to question whether similar articles like the Mercedes_F1_W06_Hybrid or the McLaren MP4-30, which haven't been edited by TheriusRooney haven't become too detailed as well? Another thing that I noticed is that if we have one article for a car that raced in multiple identities (e.g. Spyker F8-VII) the infobox specifications only relate to the original guise of the car. Shouldn't all of them be detailed? T v x1 16:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I had a go at trimming the Caterham CT03 infobox down. So I'll tag all the participants in this discussion, Eagleash JohnMcButtsZappa 24 Mati Twirlypen, TheriusRooney, for feedback. Is this now a good standard, is it still too detailed or have I been to drastic? T v x1 17:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks better, though I still feel like it could be trimmed a little more. Zappa 24 Mati 17:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for your efforts! It's an improvement but still could be trimmed down a bit I feel. Fuel and oil for example — might possibly be taken out altogether and one or two other bits pared down some more. Also I'm not sure what Penske means when it comes to suspension: might be something I should know after several decades of F1 interest, but I don't. Wishbones etc. I understand. Eagleash (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Penske is a brand. Named after its founder Roger Penske. T v x1 18:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes I know who Roger Penske is, obviously, and the Penske brand. & I well remember John Watson's first win for his team :P. But putting Penske into the suspension field is possibly not the best option as people might be looking for the type rather than the make or brand. E.g. wishbone, pullrod, pushrod etc. Eagleash (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Eagleash, do you mean like in this example? T v x1 17:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1 Yes, I think so. Relating it to vehicles pages generally; in the brakes field we'd put disc or drum (some eds might put calipers etc.) but not Girling or Ferodo or Brembro etc. IMO as the page sets out to describe the (F1) car it may be acceptable to include the brand, perhaps, as it is a specialised topic, but probably secondary to the type or spec. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I have tackled Caterham CT01, Caterham CT03, Red Bull RB9, Red Bull RB10, Mercedes F1 W06 Hybrid and McLaren MP4-30 as well. There are still more articles to do though. If TheriusRooney persists in (re-)adding these details in those info-boxes while refusing to discuss with the project's members despite the consensus, we shall refer them to the administrators without hesitation. Through my trimming down I have become increasingly worried that some of the information TheriusRooney has added isn't even correct, as I have found things that did not match the sources. T v x1 12:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for your efforts. I agree, I've had a suspicion for a while that our friend was just adding things without much in the way of basis. And I no longer keep up with the tech stuff as I once did. Eagleash (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I turns out that TheriusRooney has even been adding fields to the racecar infobox template. T v x1 00:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, attempting to: he only added the field to the doc, not to the actual template itself. DH85868993 (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It's happening again at Mercedes F1 W06 Hybrid by an IP editor, which one might possibly think is Mr. or Ms. Rooney trying to sneak under the radar. (Just a suspicion going by the type of entries). :P Eagleash (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't revert those changes though, because at least they were backed up by the source given. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The most recent 4 or 5 changes haven't added any refs or noted to pre-existing ones as far as I could see though. Eagleash (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The past 3 by the IP were on technical specs, which have one reference for all specifications. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Which ref? I can't find one for (say) energy recovery per lap. I don't think it's immediately obvious to the average reader (who is theoretically supposed to be able to go to the source and find what it says on the page) and still think it's in danger of becoming over-detailed again, ref'd or not. Eagleash (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I meant ref #1, but you are right, I misread the second edit, the energy output is not in there. I will revert that edit. On the matter of over-detailed, I would agree with you (that infobox is quite a monster). But so far we only have a consensus against the horrible tables that used to be in the article, so I guess we should gather a bigger discussion over which information needs to be in the infobox and which don't? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above re Caterham CT03 mainly concerned the infobox I think. Tvx1 was involved and may have some thoughts on this one too. Eagleash (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say that there is a rough consensus to trim infoboxes down. I mainly tried to trim them down as sensible as possible and then returned here for feedback. For some of the edits I made based on that, I simply undid Therius' edits. I would agree that there is no precise consensus on what exactly can and what cannot be included. I think it would be really helpful if we formulate a more precise consensus as to the exact wording of the contents of fields like suspension, because I have met some resistance along the way from Prisonermonkeys when I trimmed down the McLaren MP4-30 infobox. T v x1 12:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the McLaren article is a reasonable basis for consensus, but I would probably be a bit uneasy if pages were extended very far past that. Eagleash (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Formula One broadcasters nominated for deletion

Amazingly, this is being considered for deletion as the user is claiming it's nothing more than a TV guide. Have commented myself. Strongly against deletion. Discussion is here. Spa-Franks (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Spa-Franks, please don't canvas other editors while posting open discussions. Thank you. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 04:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing seems to be standard procedure at this project, looking at the two previous threads. Kraxler (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There you go, I've learnt something new today (canvassing) - thankyou (really). From my part, above, I just responded in kind... and it appears it is the wrong kind some regulars engage in at this project CtrlXctrlV (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1 thanks for your two warnings of late and the belated last one concerning canvassing. See above. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Kraxler, but exactly where do you see canvassing here? Where has anyone been asked to give an opinion in a non-neutral manner? If you really want to talk about canvassing in these discussion, I think this, this and this and this (all by CtrlXctrlV) are very obvious example. T v x1 16:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I've canvassed. I've simply stated my opinion here. Canvassing (which I do in real life) would have been saying "comment on this discussion to vote against it", which I didn't do. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well. I must admit that both your ~~and Falcadore's~~ above notifications of the deletion discussions ~~aren~~isn't exactly neutral. T v x1 14:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Falcadore's notice wasn't about a deletion discussion, simply that the page had been created. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 21:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's true. I'll scratch that since there is no canvassing there. T v x1 23:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The decision has been made to keep the article. So, I think we have a lot of work to do now to clean this up. Many of the information on the broadcasters is unsourced and that needs to be dealt with. Next is the question whether the other tables need to be retained (i.e. List of World Feed producers&list of former world feed producers). T v x1 11:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hill GH2

Um, article drafted in newly created talk page. This IP has been active on several F1 articles today. Should this be moved to 'draft' and the editor pointed in the direction of the article wizard etc. Eagleash (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This guy, IP 92.21.244.49 is going completely beserk on F1 articles, adding pretty much every photo he can find to all the articles, creating chaos. I don't have the time to fight this on my own, help would be very much appreciated! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm doing what I can. Can't keep up with the guy!! Moved the talk page to Draft: Hill GH2 Eagleash (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please contribute at Talk:Lotus 49 so I can quickly work against the guy without having to fear that I am accused of abusing my rollback rights or something along those lines... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase I think we've caught up with him now!! There a couple from earlier on I will look at but there seems to be a bit of a lull... Eagleash (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I was wrong... It's incessant. Eagleash (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

He's now created another draft article at Talk:Lola T370. Eagleash (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

And recreated the Hill talk page. T v x1 19:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Surely it would be more helpful to suggest he register, then he can create articles the right way? Why delete what he could easily create legitimately? The³5₉ (Talk) 20:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the Lola T370 stuff to the correct place, which someone else should have done immediately. Don't try and speedy something just because the guy's a bit of a pain and he's put it in the wrong place. If it's worth keeping, tidy it up (it needs work, to say the least); if it doesn't warrant keeping, get it deleted through the proper channels. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I have moved all his talk page articles to 'draft' as I've come across them. I thought the T370 page had been deleted after he blanked the page. I also CE'd the Hill draft but he recreated it in the talk page and that is what is up for deletion at the moment (not the draft). The drafts could well be usable with a bit of work. Eagleash (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Since these are going to be usable with work, as you say, I think they're better off in article space where people can see them. Tag 'em and flag 'em and people will find them and improve them. Everyone here is capable of turning these into decent articles if they care to do so. I'd clear the talk pages of his text after moving his work to article space. He hasn't reverted what I did to the T370 page so maybe he's starting to get it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Where are you finding the T370 stuff as that's definitely been deleted after he blanked the page? Has he recreated that in talk as well? I moved the pages from talk to draft as I thought he'd have more chance to work upon them without someone popping up and tagging for deletion. But if others think it's OK I can move the 2 remaining ones to article space. On another point I'm not sure what would be left on the talk pages after I moved earlier? They don't exist as far as I can see. Eagleash (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

When you move them, the original pages become redirects. There is an article on the Lola T370 now. T v x1 20:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I just moved the T370 talk page to article space and put the usual WPF1 header on the talk page. I've done it with the T371 one as well. He can't move pages or start articles in article space because he's an IP. I assume that's why he's creating them in talk space. He needs to register and listen to the advice people are giving him. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

How do you even now it's a "he"? T v x1 20:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I've done the same with the Hill GH2 page now too. I can't figure out how to find the original (now re-directed) talk pages from when I moved to draft earlier today. In my defence I've been chasing this guy since about midday & my head's about to explode!! We don't it's just lazy 'shorthand'. Eagleash (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Well he's getting the idea! He's started a talk page for Matra MS7 using the template. Now he's stuck again I suppose as doesn't know where to create the article probably and it's one that's been deleted before! Eagleash (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Is that all the stuff he's created? I know he's gone bonkers with photos, but I'm assuming that's all his articles now in the right places. I started to try and figure out what he'd done with blanking pages, drafts and talk page stuff, and then I gave up. Tvx, are any of us female? Call it a wild stab in the dark, but I'd be willing to bet that anyone with a strong interest in unsuccessful, 40 year old F1 cars is likely to be male. Not sure it matters anyway. Let's see the Matra one... Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Right so, he's created a talk page with no article. Anyone remember the old deleted MS7 article? I'll leave him a note on his page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Funny, I wanted to create the MS7 article anyway, even fought a picture of it on Flickr today. So I'll just do that and hope, he's not gonna get in the way too much... Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a collaborative project, please don't bite the newcomers. He's creating articles, not causing problems. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, he's caused a few problems which other people have tried to help out with and point him in the right direction but he's not taken a great deal of notice. Eagleash (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at the table in Matra MS7? There is still a mistake in there, and since I am still very bad with tables, I cannot find where it lies. The problem is, that there should not be another row cut underneath MEX in both 67 and 69. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to have a go at it but not sure what the prob is from what you say. Is it the extra 'box' after MEX in 1969 that is wrong? (Row 7)? (edit conflict) Oh. Nevermind, Tvx has fixed it. Eagleash (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed T v x1 23:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Tvx1! It is however not the same formatting used in i.e. Lotus 49. It should probably be consistent, no? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Done T v x1 10:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like our talk page article creating chum of yesterday is back under a different IP here Eagleash (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I created the Tyrrell 001 and 002 articles now from his drafts. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Good man! :) Eagleash (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Those pages need serious sourcing though. I'll see if I can find some tomorrow. I will also be able to provide a picture for the Matra MS5 then :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I've done some CE on the 001 (mainly rogue caps and incomplete sentences). & updated the data item. I'll look at the 002 & then see if I can add some sources from Small 1994 to both. Eagleash (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Equipe Matra Sports

I notice that the description of Matra's motorsport activities have been moved out of the Matra article into a new article: Equipe Matra Sports. If there are no objections, then some time in the next few days I'll change all the F1-related references to Matra which currently link to Matra to link to the new article instead. DH85868993 (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I encountered this some time ago after some discrepancies occurred over at Wikidata. I've done a couple of links so far but that's all. Eagleash (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I also noticed that yesterday. I'm gonna see that I contribute. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, seriously confusing, but I hope I got it all now in the car articles. If anyone should encounter this, please be aware that for the MS9, MS10, MS80 and MS84, Equipe Matra Sports is the constructor, but those cars were exclusively run by Tyrrell under the Matra International moniker. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. I think I've got most of them. Feel free to fix any I've missed. DH85868993 (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

When I checked the picture of Matra Sports logo on Wikimedia Commons I found some problem relating to licensing issue and threat of deleting this picture in 7 days after my upload. Could anybody fix this licence problem in order Matra Sports logo not to delete from Wikimedia and not to remove from article on Matra Sports ? As far as I know every F1 constructor´s champion has their logo in respective article, published without any licensing problem. Thanks for any help.Lucullus19 (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Results tables for recently created/expanded F1 car articles

The results tables for the recently created/expanded F1 car articles (Tyrrell 001, Tyrrell 002, Tyrrell 003, Tyrrell 004, Tyrrell 005, Tyrrell 006 and Hill GH1) need to have pole positions, fastest laps (and a key) added. I'll get around to it eventually, but if anyone else is keen, you're welcome to jump in ahead of me. DH85868993 (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

These are all (I think) articles started by the IP editor last weekend. There's been quite a bit of work done on them already by others trying to add/correct info & fettle them up generally (particularly Bretonbanquet) so please (anyone) feel free to help out. And maybe keep an eye out in case there's another spate of articles/edits this weekend. Eagleash (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Eagleash (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

1961 Formula One season#Non-Championship race results

The above section goes against the rest of the project. Every other season has the condensed table. Should we change the 1961 version to match the others, or do we want to undertake the undaunting task of creating a similar table for all non-championship races for all seasons they were held? Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The condensed table is preferable. Not only is the 1961 table very unwieldy and hard to navigate, it is inaccurate to claim there are any points rewarded for finishing in any of these races. QueenCake (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Going back, it was added to the article over the course of 9-10 March 2010, and is completely unsourced. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 04:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No that you mention it, QueenCake, the colour key we use for non-championship races (Template:F1 driver results legend 3) is entirely inadequate (note that it is used in driver articles as well). It uses 5 different colors to denote different types of finishes. Given that there are no points to be won in a non-championship race, there is no need to give a top six finish a specific color. What really is notable for these races, is simply who won and maybe second and third place. All positions behind that don't need a complicated color system.

For those wondering why top six finishes in non-championship races have a separate colour, from memory someone (I can't remember who) created lots of "non-championship race results" tables, using the "point finish" colour (pale green) for top six finishes and by the time we realised the error, it was simpler to just create a new key which matched the tables, rather than go back and update all the tables. I'm not saying it's an ideal solution, or that we can't change it; just explaining how we got to the current situation, for the benefit of those who weren't around at the time. DH85868993 (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, Tvx1. I'm advocating the use of the simpler tables used in every other season article. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 02:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

As the creator of the third template for driver results, I never intended it to be used on season articles and (in my opinion) it isn't suitable for that use. It was only ever meant to be used for driver articles. I disagree that the colour system is complicated; it was intended to mirror the template for Championship results as much as possible to avoid confusion. Nobody cared at the time because I was the only person using it. Anyway, non-championship results don't need big tables in the season articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It is too complicated for non-championship races, simply because there is no need to have that many different colors for non-championship races. The effect of non-championship races is much simpler in comparison to championship races. We only really need a different color for 1st place and maybe 2nd and 3rd (if those races had podiums as well). Everything lower than that can have one color. There is no need to distinguish "top-6 finishes" with a different color there because they have no special value in those races. Besides all those tables are accompanied by the correct legend anyway, so there is no need to copy other tables' systems. T v x1 11:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and replaced the table entirely with one consistant with what is standard across the rest of the season articles. Feel free to follow my work to replace any redlinks, dates, flag icons, etc... Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 01:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Err... I'm a dummy... Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 01:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Missing logo in new-created article about Equipe Matra Sports

I uploaded picture - logo of Matra Sports in new article "Equipe Matra Sports" from http://www.f1ultra.pl/encyklopediaf1/en/konstruktor-Matra,252.html (for example, from the same website is uploaded without any licencing problem also logo of Walter Wolf Racing). This picture has been now deleted after 9 days due to licencing issue. So Matra became the only F1 constructor winning constructor´s title without their official logo in their wiki article. Some expert in licencing matters could upload this missing picture. Thank you for help. Lucullus19 (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess the point is it's their logo not yours, so you don't get to decide where the logo goes. And as with most things wikipedia, what happens on other constructor's pages doesn't matter a damn. Each article must stand or fall on their own merits, not th merits of every other constructor's article. Saying it's on every other article is more than likely a reason to be used to delete the logos from the other articles. --Falcadore (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not a question of it being allowed or not. It's a question of it being uploaded in a manner that allows us to use it. The Matra logo was uploaded on commons without providing any licensing information. That is not acceptable as only free images are allowed to be uploaded there. The Walter Wolf logo referred to was uploaded directly onto the English Wikipedia with a justified claim of fair use. That should happen with the Matra logo as well for it to be able to stay. The same Licensing tag used for the Walter Wolf logo can be used for the Matra logo, while this template can be used for the fair use rationale. T v x1 10:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

If you know the correct way how to upload this logo, help me please. Thank you. Lucullus19 (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You'll need to upload the image locally to English Wikipedia (i.e. not Commons) using this link. Select "Logo" from the licence dropdown box, and follow the instructions. Everything you need is there or in the links that Tvx1 provided. The rationale needs to be specific to the page that you intend to use the logo on, and if you are going to use it for more than one page you will need more than one rationale. Complete the templates fully and in line with the instructions. If you skip or skimp on info then the file is liable to be deleted again. Hope that helps. Pyrop e 16:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't know at all what the copyright status of this logo is. In all likelihood it isn't copyrighted at all because it doesn't meet the threshold of originality, much like e.g. Tyrell's logo. T v x1 19:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Considering that the Matra logo is far more graphical (circular elements, stylized arrow/aeroplane, etc.) and that text forms only a small portion of the design, I think you'd have a hard time arguing that it isn't under copyright. Pyrop e 19:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Thank Pyrope very much.(I hope this time it is OK). Lucullus19 (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There are many examples of non-copyrighted logos on the threshold of originality page that are of similar "complexity" than the Matra one. Besides the Matra isn't much more than two circles filled with blue, an arrow thingy and some text. Just basic graphical elements.T v x1 20:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Without a USCO ruling it's just in the eye of the beholder, and completely outwith the scope of a debate on this page. Lucullus19 has fulfilled the very basic requirements (although not the full 10 points of the WP:NFCC) so we are erring on the side of legality, especially as the logo has already been deleted once. Pyrop e 22:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

What makes a driver notable?

There is currently some debate over at McLaren MP4-30 as to whether or not Kevin Magnussen is considered notable enough for inclusion in the infobox. For the sake of consistency, I feel that he should be—after all, the 2015 season article lists the Manor drivers as having participates in the race despite doing nothing over the course of the weekend because they appeared on the entry list. The current argument is that a document published by the FIA is considered absolutely factual; since, in the eyes of the FIA, Magnussen took part in the Grand Prix, that would make him notable. Conversely, the opposing argument is that Magnussen is not notable based on the definition of "notable" as given by the Oxford dictionary. For one, this is open to interpretation; it may be argued that Magnussen was a notable driver given the circumstances of his participation. Secondly, disqualifying him as "notable" on the grounds that he did not take part contradicts the WikiProject position that the FIA entry list is the first document we should use in establishing these. Third, it contradicts the season article, which both lists and describes Magnussen as participating. And finally, it undermines the justification for listing Merhi and Stevens as taking part because we would be in a situation where a driver who actually drove the car is somehow less relevant or important than two drivers who physically did nothing in the same weekend.

For the sake of consistency and to eliminate the potential for interpretation, driving a car over the course of a Grand Prix should be enough for a driver to be considered notable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that taking part in a Grand Prix makes a driver notable. So it is completely irrelevant how far Magnussen went in Melbourne and so forth. I won't cast a final opinion on wether he should be included in the infobox, but I will point out, that if we agree that entering a GP with a car makes you notable for the infobox, then several 60s and 70s car will soon have their infoboxes overflowing with driver names. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

He was entered into a race so yes he is notable. CDRL102 (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

So Dave Charlton is a notable driver of the Lotus 49?? Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. CDRL102 (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Did Magnussen achieve a result? If yes, then possibly. If he did not achieve a result then how has he made a notable contribution to the car's history? --Falcadore (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

By the presented argument, this makes even the practice drivers, such as Susie Wolff and Jolyon Palmer notable, since they've taken part in at least a portion of a Grand Prix. Give me a break. Are we really going to redefine a word just so we can squeeze as many names into an infobox as possible?? There's a list of complete drivers, regardless of their results, at the bottom of the article in the results table. If a team starts 15 different drivers over the course of a season, are all 15 automatically "notable drivers" and go into the infobox as such? No, of course not. Because that's not what the word "notable" means in any form of English. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 23:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, as I presented in the earlier argument, Nick Heidfeld raced an MP4-13 up Goodwood, setting an all-time record in an official, sanctioned event. By the very definition of the word "notable", Heidfeld qualifies for that.

It seems like the main problem here is that A) some of us have completely lost touch as to what "notable" means, and B) the car articles are about the car. Its performance during the Grand Prix season is only a portion of the scope of the article. If we are to only write about its performance in the Grand Prix season, then the title of the article should be McLaren MP4-30 in Formula One or something that would explicitly exclude the Heidfeld example above. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 23:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

So explain to me then how two drivers who did nothing—they never got into the car, much less drove it—are considered to have been notable enough to be listed as participating because their names appeared on a piece of paper when a driver who actually took part in the weekend is not considered notable? The overriding factor in just about every consensus established this year has been the need for consistency (especially since people want to nominate the 2015 season and related articles as a good topic), and that applying the same standard to all editing decisions plays a leading role in maintaining that consistency. Assuming that to be the case, then Magnussen needs to be held to the same standard as Merhi and Stevens, which means that he should be considered notable. No wonder the quality of the WikiProject has gone downhill of late if we're not applying our own standards or if we're making decisions based on one isolated episode with no consideration given to future needs.

And the irony of all this is that Twirlypen is one of the major voices arguing for this need to be consistent. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Notability was never the issue with that discussion. Stop acting like it was. The Manor argument is irrelevant to this one. That one was a matter of "did they or didn't they", black or white, yes or no, to participation in Australia. This discussion is about the use of the word "notable". If 95% of the people who drive a car are notable simply for putting their ass in the seat, then that goes against the very definition of the word. And I'm pretty sure the one arguing for consistency here is you, via the old "well we've been doing it this way so there shouldn't be anything wrong with it" argument.

Kevin Magnussen was a notable driver of the MP4-30? Huh, let me go to his page. Wow, 1 race he didn't even start. Simply remarkable! Does notable literally mean something else on the eastern side of the Atlantic Ocean?? Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 23:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Not being European or African, I wouldn't know. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Well anyway, I'm nearly certain it's one of those words that has the same universal meaning wherever English is spoken around the world. You brought up that the circumstances that allowed Magnussen to drive are what makes him a notable driver. Assuming the exact same results (DNS in only race entered), would that also hold true if McLaren decided to race Oliver Turvey?? What about anyone else?? I'm probably foolish for even asking, because for some reason a little piece of me thinks that you're considering Magnussen notable simply on name alone. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 23:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to get drawn into another pissing match over what words mean. I know where you stand and why you stand there, and you know where I stand and why I stand there. So far, it seems that the other contributors are split pretty evenly. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 23:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Consider the inverse, then. What notable contributions have Button and Alonso made to the car's history? If you read the bulk of the article, the emphasis is on the relationship between McLaren and Honda. The engine is the key factor in performance, and it is well-documented that Honda are developing it independently of the team. Without any evidence to the contrary, it's pretty obvious that Button and Alonso make very little contribution in that area beyond providing feedback—which Magnussen also did in pre-season testing. Sure, they have scored the odd points finish, but it's pretty obvious that those results were down to luck rather than design. So what really separates Button and Alonso from Magnussen? That they drove the car more than he did? And if so, how does that fit the definition of "notable"? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I would be inclined to set the bar at either scoring points or starting at least half of the races - in this season's case, start 10 races or score points. That way, people like Button and Alonso are notable for scoring points for the car AND starting the majority of the races, but Magnussen being entered and not even starting is not notable. And in the Manor/Merhi/Stevens case, they would still have a ways to go because the MR03 also competed in 2014, so half of those races would be 16+19=35/2= 17.5 → 18 races. ~~Stevens is already there having raced it last year,~~ Bianchi scored points despite only being in 15 races, and if Merhi gets to the end of the season, he'll be at 18 as well, and Stevens is hypothetically already out as he did not start the first two races, but can still be considered if he scores points for the MR03B. This is keeping in mind that these pertain to articles regarding the cars, not the drivers themselves. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 01:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Then, given the unique circumstances behind Honda's return and start-from-scratch approach, don't you think that Magnussen rates as notable given his participation in the pre-season testing given that McLaren did not get any significant running until the final test, which would have been important to the early development of the car and the engine? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No, because he was only entered in 1 race out of what will almost certainly be 19, he did not score points, less even start the race, and Alonso and Button will have started the majority of the races and most likely have scored all of their points. He would have been notable if McLaren-Honda only entered the first two races and then called it quits for the rest of the season, but they're twelve rounds in now. And pointing out that Magnussen would have been notable if the season ended after round two is just silly. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 01:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Force India didn't have their car til the third session, I believe. By that notion, Pascal Wehrlein is a notable driver of the VJM08, which is equally silly. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 01:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Or, if the article really is about the car in its entire lifetime and not just its performance in the World Championship, if a driver does something, what's the word I'm looking for, notable (such as the Heidfeld example), then that too could be considered for notability. Testing and development isn't notable though - all teams do this when developing new cars, whether it's a new partnership or not. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 02:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

But the testing and development of this car is notable because of the engine partnership. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Opinions. Lotus jumped to Mercedes after 20+ years of being with Renault, so Jolyon Palmer, Carmen Jordá, and Adderly Fong would fall under notable E23 Hybrid drivers under that circumstance. Further, Oliver Turvey and Stoffel Vandoorne would also be for the MP4-30. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 02:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You're the one giving the definition of notability. And with that comes scope for using our discretion for unusual cases. It can apply to Magnussen without needing to describe Palmer/Jorda/Fong as notable because Honda developed their engine from scratch. Lotus didn't; they bought a customer engine. As for Turvey and Vandoorne, I'm not aware of Turvey driving the car. Vandoorne, on the other hand, played a key role in the early stages of running the engine, albeit in the -29 chassis, but I could accept him as being a "notable" driver. Like you said, the article is about the car first. Considering the scope of the article, covering testing and development as well as racing, I think Vandoorne and Magnussen fit the criteria. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

But the testing and development of this car is notable because of the engine partnership.

You say it's important, but you can't define or quantify it. Not enough.

The McLaren MP4/30 is a racing car. It's purpose is to achieve results and Magnussen has not contributed to those. --Falcadore (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

And without development, how can a car achieve results? Like I said, McLaren only really had one proper pre-seasom test, which Magnussen took part in.

Furthermore, how did Magnussen fail to contribute to the car's results? It was the engine that failed, not the driver. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we really need to draw a clear line to what's notable and what isn't. Putting the treshold as low as just appearing on an entry list is notable will just result in us listing every driver that took part in a grand prix for that car like in this ridiculous example. By the way, Turvey drove the car during in-season tests at Barcelona. And Twirlypen, your addittions of similar hardly used drivers to other cars' articles is a clear example of WP:POINT. T v x1 18:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I was told in a fairly direct manner that these cartoonishly low standards notability were the concensuses that the community has already agreed to. If PM blatantly lied to me about that, then I'm sorry for making the changes to reflect what I was told. Feel free to change it back to a more reasonable version that doesn't make a mockery of the English language, or we can just wait to see if these comical standards of notability being presented are actually agreed upon. I've already provided my standards above. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 23:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Pascal Wehrlein helped Mercedes test out the Mercedes power unit in 2014 when the regulations changed. Mercedes was basically starting from scratch there too, so in the circumstances presented by PM, he is a notable driver of every Mercedes-powered car in 2014. This is quite absurd. If you want to put every driver in the field as notable, just change the damn word from "notable" to "all" or "entered". Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 23:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

If you accept that the primary emphasis of the article is on the car, then the car's history is not limited to the races—it has to be designed and developed in advance, and will one day be retired. Therefore, any driver who contributed to the car's design and development is notable because they provided the feedback and data needed to further develop the car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm done here. We are legitimately proposing putting test drivers in the car article's notable drivers field just to keep a preferred edit. Just amazing. This happens very single time. The Manor/Australia thing didn't go your way, so you immediately proposed chopping the entry table to 4 basic columns just so evidence of concensus is wiped out completely. The VDG/Australia thing didn't go your way, so you proposed that GP Update be blacklisted as an RS. Now you want to expand the definition of notable so much so as to include even the test, reserve, and practice drivers for all cars just to keep Magnussen in the MP4-30 article. If everyone is notable, then that's not notable!!!! For the record, I was being completely facetious when I said the Wehrlein would be notable based on your proposals. It was in no way an agreement. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 01:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Twirlypen, it think it's obvious that there is no clear consensus at all that every driver that has driven a car is a notable driver for that car and nor has there ever been. Nor has Prisonermonkeys claimed in their edit summaries or their talk page posts here and on the car's article. Therefore your edits were misplaced an borne out of frustration.

Prisonermonkeys, I think it's obvious that you are currently unable to distinguish between notable drivers of a car and drivers who have simply driven a car in a non-exhibition session. These articles deal with race cars, not simply cars. Their primary emphasis should be the race cars' racing history and drivers included within that. Test and development drivers just don't figure into that. After all, why do you think we dont list engineers either. They clearly make a much more significant contribution to the design and development than test drivers who only drive the cars in a handful of sessions over the entire season. The fact that you weren't even aware that Turvey drove the car in an official session too until we pointed that out to you, proves just how unremarkable these drives are. T v x1 03:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If this is so controversial, I'm beginning to think that we should ditch the field alltogether. After all, we already list the most important driver contributions in the tables in the cars' results section. T v x1 03:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That was one of my very first proposed solutions. Just take "Notable" out of the factor. Change "Notable drivers" to "Entered drivers", "All drivers" (especially if we are seriously considering the addition of test and practice drivers), or just simply "Drivers". However, I realize that would probably need to be taken up with WP:WikiProject Motorsport, since many series use the infobox. And quite frankly it's ridiculous to bring it up there because the F1 community wants make every single driver notable. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 03:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do you actually claim the F1 community wants that? Only Prisonermonkeys proposes that and they don't get much support if you look at the above discussion.

And I disagree on changing it to make it all-inclusive to, because that will lead to situations like my earlier Alfa Romeo example.. Either we keep it restricted, either we ditch it. T v x1 03:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I had an easy proposal for what would make a driver notable. Meet one of the following criteria: A) Start at least half of the races that the car is entered in (IE being entered in 14 races in a 19 races season but only starting 5 races wouldn't be notable unless.......), and/or B) score points in that vehicle (even if you only start 5 races in a 19 race season). It's a simple black & white bar to reach that isn't vague. I never should have brought up changing the wording though. I guess I'll go watch their talk page now for that inevitable post soon. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 03:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"Just amazing. This happens very single time."

Do you really want to go down this path again? Once again, I'm not persuaded by your argument so you immediately ignore AGF and assume that this is some petty attempt by me to get my way. But what do you think is the more likely explanation here: that everything I do is being dictated by some long-held vindictive internet grudge, or that you're just not nearly as persuasive as you think you are?

For the record, I still don't trust GP Update. I will never use it as a source, especially if it's the only source. It's personal preference—I will go to Autosport, Sky, the BBC and James Allen first. Likewise, I still think that listing Manor as taking part in Melbourne despite doing nothing except appearing on a piece of paper the week beforehand is completely ridiculous; in fact, I would go so far as to say that it's one of the stupidest decisions made on Wikipedia, and anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that it's completely wrong. And in the sane vein, I believe that Magnussen qualifies as a notable driver because of his contribution to the car's development. There has been a very conscious effort to focus on the development rather than the results of the car, and given that you yourself have acknowledged that the focus is on the car and its wider history rather than just the racing, then drivers who contribute to its development are notable.

So, what's more likely: me holding a grudge or you not being very persuasive? Given that you seem to think that it's appropriate to insult the intelligence of the people you are trying to persuade, it's you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I introduced the idea of putting the champions in the infobox my very first week of being active here, which was widely accepted if I recall. I've also introduced several other minor ideas to the project, again most of which were accepted. Others weren't, but I've let it go because this is a community. So, if you don't find me persuasive, it sounds more like a personal problem.

As far as not AGF, that's solely with you. You're the only one that will take the most trivial matters to extreme lengths just to get your way (from taking the Vergne issue to DRN even though everyone else agreed that he was still being considered for STR and claiming Team Principal Tost has no authority with the team, raising GP Update as an RS even though you're the only one that "doesn't trust it" just because they hail from the same nation as VDG, to proposing a basic drivers table when everyone disagreed with your reasoning regarding the Manor/AGP issue [a discussion that I actually changed sides during when presented with counter-reasoning - also against your claims that I am stubborn or have a vendetta], and lord knows what else you have in mind to drag this out for weeks or months), something I don't recall ever doing when one of my ideas or arguments gets shot down by anyone else. So, I think it should go without saying that assuming you have good faith and won't do it again for an umpteenth time is out the window at this point, as I fully expect this to be held open until it's over 100kb, 3 subsections long. Report me. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 05:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If convincing yourself that this is all part of some mad vendetta on my part makes thus easier for you, then I suppose that's your perogative. But I also think that it's part of what's holding the project back—there's no debate or discussion anymore; there's just people taking sides and repeating themselves until the other side gives in. Considering that you seem to think abusing people who disagree with you or don't come around to your way of thinking soon enough is somehow appropriate, you cannot reasonably tell me that you think this community is anything but dysfunctional. You call my actions a vendetta, but I'm not the one repeating a list of the other editors' previous decisions to justify his position. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

My actions are holding the project back?? OK, that's clearly the most delusional thing I've read yet. As I stated literally one comment ago, I've introduced quite a few ideas in my time here, some of which have gotten adopted, others not. I repeated your previous episodes (as they more appropriately were) because you always wave the AGF flag as soon as someone, namely me, calls you out on your shit. Holding the project back.... good lord, that is hilarious! Especially coming from the person who's constant first reply when a change is introduced is always, without fail, some variation of "This is how we've been doing it for years, so I see no reason to change it and I think it's best to just leave it". Or are you just that blind to the one common factor in these long, drawn-out discussions that inevitably go off-track?? There's ONE common user in the middle of it all, every single time. Need a hint? Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You both really need to stop this. Nothing of what either of you have written in your last posts helps this discussion forward even a tiny bit. Nor does it help the project in any way. If you have personal issues with each other, please engage in a constructive discussion your talk pages or go to the relevant noticeboard.

So, we established a while ago that Marussia did more than simply appear on a piece of paper in Australia. They participated in the initial scrutineering which constitutes participating in the Grand Prix per the official rules.

The insistence that Magnussen made a significant contribution to the car's development and thus performance of the car falls with the absence of any means for us to demenstrate the quantity and effect of his contribution. More importantly, regarding development and design, the team's engineers have undoubtedly contribute much more than Magnussen. And the notable development drivers are Button and Alonso by providing tons of feedback and data through driving in nearly every free practice sessions and a number of pre season and in season test. Magnussen's role as driver is rather unremarkable.

And Prisonermonkeys, I find it quite bemusing that you claim the other party is not really persuasive while you are the one who have gathered hardly any support for your position. T v x1 08:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1, and everyone else here, I'm sorry that I always seem to get suckered into it with this nonsense. It's just bewildering. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Imposter accounts

The same editor that ran around making imposter accounts (Prisonernonkeys, Tvx11, etc) a few months ago is at it again. Just a heads up to everyone. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Briatore fired or let go in '97 at Benetton?

Hi there, Benetton Formula states that Rocco Benetton fired Briatore in 1998, but Rocco Benetton's page itself says he just replaced Briatore with Dave Richards. I didn't have time look into this myself. No ref sources on either. Maybe someone can help? Guroadrunner (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Joe Saward's old GrandPrix.com articles use the terms "replaced" and "ousted", but the Financial Times is rather less mealy mouthed, saying unequivocally that "Briatore was fired in the late 1990s by Rocco Benetton". Pyrop e 03:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Article length

I have raised the issue on behalf of another editor who feels that the length of the 2015 Formula One season article is possibly too long. The discussion can be found here. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, then, we're agreed: you won't claim to be acting on my behalf, and I won't edit out those references. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to name yourself if you must. I would have wanted to keep myself anonymous after making such a claim. As for what references you are talking about, I have no idea. Let's try to keep this one on topic though. Please state why you believe the article or a section of it to be too long or, if you do not hold such an opinion, state this so that this discussion can be closed. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Manor Marussia results

Shouldn't the results of Manor Marussia F1 be under Manor on the Manor Motorsport article instead of Marussia?, despite still using the Marussia constructor name the team is now under a new identity of Manor or Manor Marussia so it would make more sense consistently to separate it from the previous Marussia results, its the same situation as Sauber's 2010 results being under the Sauber name rather then BMW Sauber even though the team was still using that constructor title, it helps keeping the articles of Marussia F1 team and Manor Marussia F1 team distinguishable from each other as Manor is seen universally as a new team public wise despite what the constructor name is. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It certainly shouldn't be under Manor because that's neither the team's neither the constructor's name. The team is called Manor Marussia, the constructor is called Marussia and their most recent car is called the Marussia MR03B. The problem with splitting the 2015 results in those tables to a new entity is that you create even more confusion in making that distinction for Marussia/Manor Marussia, but not for Virgin/Marussia Virgin even though those transitions are very similar: new backer running it as the same constructor with roughly the same personnel. This approach is also consistent with the rationale the project uses to group the 2011 Lotus Renault results still under the Renault constructor name rather than its successor Lotus. The Sauber situation is different as while the team name stayed the same, the constructor wasn't quite the same. This is evident in the fact that the 2009 car was the BMW Sauber F1.09, while the 2010 car was the Sauber C29 (reverting to the original Sauber constructor's name scheme). T v x1 19:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It just doesn't seem right having those results under Marussia as the team themselves and many media websites refer to the team as a new identity that being Manor and referring to those previous years as Marussia. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That's because you're talking about the teams, while the tables deal with constructors. Those are not synonyms. That they were different teams is identified by having a different team name in the team column of those tables. T v x1 23:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hang on a second, why do we have a separate Manor Marussia article in the first place? The FIA still credits results to Marussia. We had the same scenario with BMW Sauber in 2010—we credited the results to the constructor name that the FIA recognised. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You know, I have been thinking the same thing lately. T v x1 02:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1 — I get that it's convenient in the face of confusion, but the standard we have set is to follow the FIA's conventions. And the ownership issue should be adequately explained in the prose of the article; we shouldn't be relying on the results alone to differentiate between the two. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. T v x1 03:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1 — I think we really need to reconsider our priorities here. I genuinely feel that some recent trends in editing have led to the project losing sight of its intended purpose. We should be writing the article for people with no knowledge of the sport; people who click "random article" and wind up on the page. But some of the recent changes really require an intimate understanding of the sport, and even then, I find the decision making process to be baffling in the extreme. Look at the 2014 season article, where according to the driver table Marussia have three drivers at Spa, which is unsupported by anything in the article—even the results matrices show them as running two cars. And apparently this is justified because of the difference between "entries" and "starts", a difference which is not evident in the article.

We seem to have gotten ourselves in a situation where we're assuming that the compromise between two competing ideas is always the best solution. As much as the FIA is the ultimate authority on the sport, I really feel that we should be prioritising a) what is representative of reality and b) what is practical for the reader, so that we can get past the silly and paradoxical decisions that are being made. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

What are you even complaining about? I agree with you. Merge the articles and use the prose to explain the situation to the average reader. As for 2014, Rossi's entries are sourced to the actual entry lists and he appears as withdrawn in the results matrices. So your concerns seem to be unfounded. T v x1 09:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

In response to the question "why do we have a separate Manor Marussia article in the first place?": Back in June Speedy Question Mark proposed that there should be a separate article and a discussion ensued. When nothing had happened a month later, SQM raised the matter again, identifying the earlier discussion as a consensus for the article to be created and so the article was created. DH85868993 (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Prisonermonkeys still was on a four month block back then, hence why they were unable to contribute to the discussions. T v x1 10:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

That's neither here nor there. Anyway in lieu of a discussion then, I think that we should have one now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, then make an official merger proposal.T v x1 12:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — I don't actually know how to do that. I've never done it before. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Everything has a manual. T v x1 16:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Marussia/Manor Marussia merger

I have started a discussion on merging Manor Marussia F1 into Marussia F1, as to be quite honest, the Manor Marussia article should not have been created as the FIA does not recognise it as a constructor and instead credits results to Marussia, and this needs to be consistent with other, similar articles such as Sauber/BMW Sauber and Lotus/Renault. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Chinese Wikipedia

You know how they say that the Chinese are always copying German products? I guess they're right:

Belgium: EN -> ZH
Hungary: EN -> ZH

I could go on... Maybe I should do something about that? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This and this make what you are saying more obvious. T v x1 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are complaining about. You know that all Wikipedia is on a CC BY-SA licence, don't you? The talk pages of both articles you identified include the zh.wikipedia equivalent of {{Translated page}}, correctly identifying en.wikipedia as the source. Therefore, both pages comply with copyright requirements. Chin up, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and all that! Pyrop e 17:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I see now, with all the Chinese floating around I didn't recognize the banner even though I looked at the talk pages. Well, I was flattered anyway ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hardly unique to the Chinese Wikipedia, I see it on several European languages all the time with articles I work on. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

2015 Season Good topic?

Hey everyone! I would be interested in making the 2015 season a good topic on Wikipedia after the season is over. This is probably a lot of work for one person, so would anyone be interested in helping me? A lot of people are working on the relevant articles anyway, so helping would mainly mean being in close contact and talking about what still needs to be done, coordinating who is responsible and so forth.

Articles that would need to be brought to GA status would be:

2015 Formula One season
All race reports (I am taking care of that, most are promoted before the next race takes place)
All cars, this is the most pressing matter, since most of those are dysmal. The McLaren is the best one by far (the article, not the car...).

Why am I bringing this up so soon? I believe we should start working on those car articles as soon as possible to have it done by the end of the year. I would volunteer to work on the Force India and the Williams. Anyone willing to take over another car article and bring it up to speed?

Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I like the initiative, but I can only speak for myself that I probably do not have the time (or the skill) to give the articles the attention they need to be elevated to GA aside from the general and minor fixes I tend to do. I am going to leave it to the community to fix the season report prose, having taken a few weeks off due to the break has made me see what issues they are talking about. However, aside from that, the rest of the season article is in good shape, I would think. With you taking the race reports, and the prose being brought up to date, the cars really don't need a terribly expansive or detailed article to be considered for GA. An issue was even raised that the MP4-30 article may even be a bit too technical at this point. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 23:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, here's the "Good Topic" box with all of the articles it would encompass. Helpful for tracking progress.

Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very handy indeed! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the chassis it maybe worth having a MoS of sorts to try and avoid messy articles. Naturally I think some will have more information than others come the end of the season because successful cars will bring about more discussion to work with. Although I think something like this is a good starting point: - [Section] - Background (Discuss the 2014 > 2015 transition rules and how it affects the new car) - Development and performance

- Pre-season

- During the season (avoid usage of listing what happened at every grand prix. Although if something noteworthy about the car happens during specific GP (e.g. Williams on slow tracks?) it is worth bringing up in discussion with adequate citations)

- Post-season (development of new car, etc)

- Legacy(?) - Results(?) - Bibliography + External Links

Again, just a thought, although I can't find a consensus or documentation on a Manual of Style for racing chassis. Of course, it's been a while since I was here so maybe I'm not looking in the right places! Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 12:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Seeing that McLaren MP4-30 is already quite well developed, we might use that article as a starting point, looking at what works and what doesn't and go from there? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Mmm - like I said, haven't been around for a while. :) Although a small concern is that for cars that share the power units how would one go about making sections for each car without it looking regurgitated? Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 18:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Red Bull/Red Bull Racing

It was recently brought to attention that while we have been crediting Red Bull as the constructor for years, the FIA indeed credits results to Red Bull Racing, and Toro Rosso to Scuderia Toro Rosso (which we have shortened to STR). Given this, should we credit results to Red Bull Racing as well instead of just Red Bull, and if so, would it be appropriate to abbreviate it to RBR as we already do for STR? Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Just follow the sources, they have been crediting them as "Red Bull Racing" and "Scuderia Toro Rosso" in 2014 and 2015 (with the later sometimes shortened to STR)[3], [4], [5], while they credited them as "Red Bull Racing" and "Toro Rosso" before that.[6] T v x1 11:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess you mean in the results? Because in the prose, per WP:COMMONNAME, I will just continue to write Red Bull and Toro Rosso. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't abbreviate the names, that's not very reader friendly. The FIA isn't very consistent on this - their own championship table gets it completely wrong and uses the team names, and F1.com's table decides to go down the middle and use Red Bull Racing and Toro Rosso. Based on a somewhat haphazard approach, you could use anything you want, or just go for the common name of Red Bull and Toro Rosso which most third parties use (see Autosport or the BBC) as Zwerg Nase suggests.

I'm trying to find the discussions on this, but this has come up in the past and we did decide to keep using "Toro Rosso" instead of STR or some other combination. QueenCake (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

If we were to use Red Bull Racing and Scuderia Toro Rosso, we would also need to use Scuderia Ferrari everywhere. And in articles from a couple of years back, we would need to call them Marlboro Scuderia Ferrari. I don't think that anyone really wants that... Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

That is correct. Even before I was involved in the project, I had the understanding that sponsors stayed only in the entry table as their official team name. Did the FIA also credit Marlboro in their results along with the Ferrari name? Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 22:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Just go by what the entry list says. If it's good enough to list which drivers took part in which rounds, it's good enough to serve as a source for constructor names. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Save that they tend to list different constructor names for the red bull teams nearly every year. T v x1 05:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Both teams have been in the sport for a decade, so which name is used most frequently? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You can look that up yourself, you know. Each of those season articles uses that year's entry list as a source. T v x1 06:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — doesn't the FIA produce an entry list right at the start of the season? They usually get published in December. Every team has to pay an entry fee when they enter for the season. It's usually just a summary of what we know in terms of driver movements, but I would suggest using that one as the constructor names for the season. But I can't seem to find the 2015 entry list. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, It's used in the 2015 season article. T v x1 11:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — thanks.

Okay, so the sporting regulations state that the name of the chassis must be derived from the name of the constructor (plus the name of the engine manufacturer if they are not building their own). Therefore, if Red Bull nominate their chassis as "Red Bull Racing-Renault" on that entry list, we can take it to mean that their constructor name is "Red Bull Racing" and their engine supplier is "Renault". I think that we can reasonably use that entry list as a guide for constructor names. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

For 2015, yes. But not for previous years. And as I said before, they tend to use different names for Red Bull and Toro Rosso every other year. By the way the entry lists for Grands Prix, like this one, tend to have an actual constructors' column. T v x1 12:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that "STR" is only an abbreviation, not the actual name, as Tvx1 said at the top? It's maddeningly unhelpful to see an abbreviation that has no use in any reliable source outside of the occasional FIA document, and remember technically, on Wikipedia the FIA is a first-party source, so we do not have to follow them if third-party sources disagree. QueenCake (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@QueenCake — this is what I find so maddeningly frustrating: we hold up the entry list as gospel, but we don't apply it consistently. Even in the face of reliable third-party sources. And yes, I'm talking about the Stevens/Merhi entries in Melbourne. I'm not trying to start a discussion about that, just make a point:

We have a first-party source—the entry list—produced before the first session that says they participated. However, we have a plethora of first- and third-party sources (race reports, official results from sessions, etc.) that says they clearly did not participate. Nevertheless, we have gone with the original first-party source that says they participated.

Now, in trying to figure out the constructor names, we've gone to the first-party sources—the season entry list published in December. But because there are inconsistencies, you're now telling us that we should be relying on third-party sources, which is a fair point. The problem is that we now have a paradox: we rely on first-party sources in some cases, but third-party sources in others. They're really addressing the same content—the entries—with nothing to distinguish between them. Furthermore, as has been documented, these first-party sources are themselves inconsistent in what they present, so how can we rely on them at all?

And then when I bring up this massive inconsistency and the need to address it, I get accused of having some ulterior motive, of trying to deliberately disrupt the project because I am not getting my way.

So, now seems like an opportune time to ask: on the subject of entries (and any element thereof), do we rely on first-party sources, or third-party sources? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

That depends... sorry, I know you like having hard-and-fast rules to follow, but that isn't desirable or practical on Wikipedia. For most things on Wikipedia we follow the commoname guideline, and the underlying "principle of least astonishment". Be kind to the readers. Don't force "proper" terminology down their throats if that just isn't commonly used in most major information sources. It is not Wikipedia's place to 'correct' people, just provide information. If there is some major inconsistency in the way major public information sources handle terminology then we can use primary sources to decide which we use, but where national and global media all use one form, so do we. Pyrop e 22:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pyrope — I get that, but I am just trying to reconcile it with my understanding of the situation, so please bear with me here.

In Melbourne, we had Manor Marussia appear on the entry list produced at the start of the event. This list said that they were "eligible" to take part because they had submitted the paperwork and passed scrutineering. However, they never ran over the course of the weekend. We have plenty of first-party sources that show this, like the results from the practice and qualifying sessions and the race. We also have a whole host of reliable third-party sources that say that they never took part. Furthermore, the Sporting Regulations outline the minimum requirements for a driver to actually take part in the Grand Prix: to run in at least one practice session and to attempt to qualify the car. Now, the 2015 season article lists them as taking part, but to my mind, they have not—the only place that they have "taken part" is on the entry list because a Grand Prix starts with scrutineering; while technically correct, I also feel that it is an argument based on senantics and not representative of what happened. I feel that this violates the "principle of least astonishment" because to the casual reader who, say watches the race and then checks the article, Manor Marussia has taken part when the casual reader can see no evidence.

So at the end, I am confused as to why we are prioritising a single first-party source over a multitude of subsequent first- and third-party sources, especially now that it has been demonstrated that this first-party source can be inaccurate. I'm not looking for an absolute rule of where one should be used in place of another, but rather to narrow the range down a bit because I think that there is too much latitude here—an over-emphasis on selected first-party sources under some conditions, and a rejection of them in others. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with Pyrope. Inconsistency can be a problem, but not one that is always solvable. Because there so many exceptional cases due to the long history of this sport, every time we try to impose uniformity from one issue to another we end up running into problems, and instead have to often deal with things on an article-by-article basis - which may end up with us having to determine which sources are right and which are wrong. To answer one question, yes, generally, third party sources are preferable, though in practice taking information directly from the FIA on certain regulatory matters doesn't cause a problem, and can actually be helpful to correct careless mistakes from some media outlets.

For the other, I think perhaps the best way to proceed is not to look at one source and use it rigidly for every matter concerning entries, but instead look at the topic at hand and then look at how the sources treat it. On the two cases you bring up, for the case of Stevens and Merhi we eventually decided we needed to represent races entered rather than the more murky idea of races participated in or sessions run in, and that the relevant tables and articles should simply reflect the entries. For this case as there was some confusion from the sources covering contemporary F1 over whether they were representing the fate of cars entered or the race result, we based the entry on the Grand Prix entry list from the FIA, which was probably the best decision as this keeps us consistent with articles from the 1950s and 60s when cars entered would not necessarily run (or even show up!), but are still counted.

For the constructor names, the third party sources are much more unanimous. "Red Bull" and "Toro Rosso" are in common usage, and I think we have to follow that. It is possible, reading through the FIA documents, that at some point the constructor names of the team/s were changed, but faced with conflicting evidence from the FIA and no recognition from other sources as to whether that is the case, I can't see a case for changing to "Red Bull Racing-Renault" or "STR-Renault". QueenCake (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I still think that it's utterly ridiculous that cars and drivers which never actually left the garage could be considered as taking part. Especially when it is based on a single first-party source and stands in contradiction to multiple first- and third-party sources. If you're worried about changes affecting earlier articles, we only need to backdate it to the time when the rules were changed following the abolition of pre-qualifying to state that drivers had to take part in free practice and qualifying to race. After all, look at the wording of the entry list: "the following cars have passed scrutineering and are eligible to take part in the race" (or words to that effect). The key word is "eligible"—it only means that they can take part in the race, not that they will.

The focus of the season article is the year as a whole, which is represented by the championship. To be a part of the championship, you have to be classified in a race (even if you are classified as retiring). To take part in a race, you must qualify. Submitting paperwork and passing scrutineering is not the same as qualifying—and so in theory, if Marussia had collapsed after Melbourne, we would list them as taking part in the season despite doing nothing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

They may not have achieved a result, but paying a non-refundable season entry fee, shipping the cars to an event location, entering drivers to be scrutineered, feverishly working throughout the weekend, and being recognized as doing such by the FIA afterwards (I think the exact words were "even if they broke curfew") hardly quantifies as "doing nothing". Further, Manor Marussia didn't collapse after Melbourne, so it's really a moot argument. Also one we really, really don't need to have again.

Side note: The team is in fact Manor Marussia, not Marussia. Marussia is just the name of the car. Cars can't fold. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Side side note: I can't be accused of violating AGF by pointing out that you are making all of these changes - despite the discussions that have already taken place - due to the result of one particular discussion (the 2015 Australia/Manor discussion), when you have already admitted to that being the reason you are doing this ("apparently the piece of paper is the rule"). ALLORNOTHING, while written for AfD discussions, can clearly be applied here, and is why we have discussions on a case by case basis. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

So we just credit them for showing up, do we? I'll refer you back to the "principle of least astonishment"—for someone who watched the race, what do you think would be more astonishing when they read the article: learning that Marussia took part, or learning that they didn't?

There is too much focus on what happens at the very start of the weekend, when the most important part is what happens at the end of the weekend. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you other than that is simply not true. But seeing as you have admitted on more than one occasion to not even bothering to read the race articles, it's hardly an argument I feel needs pursuing. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Weekend articles are about the happenings of the entire weekend, not just the race. Sure, most instances, it's the practices and qualifying and the race. But sometimes, what happens off the track gets attention too. If it so happens that the background section is a little beefier one weekend to the next, that's not on us to decide what gets included in the articles. Note: The section on Manor Marussia is, in fact, the smallest section of the aforementioned race article, for anyone else that doesn't feel the need to read it. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, literally the only user that has complained about this since the weekend happened is you. So if there really is a problem of "astonishment" it would have become much more apparent by now. By the way, we don't credit anything. We just report what the official instances credit or not. T v x1 11:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We really need to get somewhere on the Red Bull/Toro Rosso names, though. There has been continuous edit warring over this for over the last 24 hours on multiple articles, despite this discussion. T v x1 12:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I seriously don't know why this is a problem as mentioned above we've used "Red Bull" and "Toro Rosso" for years without problems, yes it says "Red Bull Racing" and "STR" on the FIA sheets but didn't the FIA call Red Bull "RBR" at one point in time, even the FIA themselves sometimes prove to be inconsistent so keeping them how they are as COMMONNAME won't hurt the articles, Red Bull Racing would also just look silly squeezed into the table box so just Red Bull is a good wikipedia alternative. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Editing based on what "looks silly" is probably the worst reason for making an edit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Above all, we have to use names that have actually been used in real life. We can't just invent our own. There's no reason to think the ones that have been proposed here supported with sources won't "work". T v x1 15:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm just saying that what we used before (i.e Red Bull/Toro Rosso) had no problems and I don't see much reason to change it, readers arnt going to come along and get confused because it says "Red Bull" instead of "Red Bull Racing" or "Toro Rosso" instead of "STR" because I can find a lot of sources that back up the way we previously displayed it, plus the chassis are under the names "Red Bull" and "Toro Rosso". Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not a question of what is convenient. It's a question of what the sources say. We cannot go making up constructor names. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

We aren't making up constructor names. These are extremely widely used acronyms and shortenings, not unlike how Suzuka International Racing Course is called Suzuka Circuit just about everywhere except formula1.com Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 04:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Further, try not to ignore consensus. Consensus can in fact be assumed when it's been a certain way for a long time without a previous discussion having ever taken place ("Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus."). You introduced a change that was nearly immediately reverted - the next step is to start a discussion to achieve new consensus, NOT to repeatedly revert and edit war while arguing your case. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 04:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I was going off the consensus—the consensus of "what the entry list says". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparantly you misinterpretted that, then. You can stop bringing up that argument already too. I think just about everyone is getting bored with it. It was used to solve one discussion back in April-June (ugh, nearly 3 whole friggin months). You don't need to wave the result of it around like it's the be all/end all to everything. I don't know how many times I have to say it: We have discussions for each issue, not one discussion for all issues. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 05:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Further, RBR is never revealed to be an acronym of Red Bull Racing or Red Bull-Renault, as I don't personally recall any publications have ever refered to the constructor as RBR-Renault. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 09:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Really, Twirlypen? 2006 season entry list! T v x1 11:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you can recall more than I can. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 03:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't recall anything. I just made the minor effort of looking it up. T v x1 23:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Use of Facebook images

I'm sure this was at one point discussed, but given that we always see photos in the media credited to Facebook, what is their policy and what relation does it have with Wikipedia? If I understand Facebook's EULA and ToS, any media uploaded to them becomes property of Facebook. Ergo, permission to use photos need not come from the uploader, but from Facebook themselves. That is, IF I understand it correctly. Thoughts/ideas? Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 21:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain you misunderstand Facebook's policies. Uploading an image anywhere, even Facebook, does not alter someone's ownership or copyrights. Facebook may have certain policies allowing them to reuse an image for their own use, but that reuse policy does not extend to others. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's highly possible that I am. I am just basing my reasoning off of, let's say, when a terrible tragedy occurs, for example the Charleston church shooting, the media publishes photos and postings from the perpetrator's Facebook account, if they so have one. I sincerely doubt the suspect gave permission for the media to publish these photos - so I assume that the media got permission from Facebook - if permission was sought after at all. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 00:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Those are attributed to the original creator, not Facebook, and used under fair use, or the family tends to grant permission. News has a bit more wiggle room than a website like Wikipedia. We allow fair use but under more restrictions. In other words, Facebook has nothing to do with whether the images are used or not. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

New article

Project members may be interested in this recently created article: List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna. DH85868993 (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete. T v x1 21:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That creates a rather unwanted precedent. If this stays up, we're going to end up with lists for every driver with more than a couple of wins within a few months. I really don't see what this article adds that is not already covered on Senna's existing article. I would support it being nominated for deletion. QueenCake (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Essentially, with all the talk lately of Senna's 41 wins, as Vettel and Hamilton passed that mark, there was lots of coverage regarding his wins. In turn, this got me interested in them, but found that nowhere had a useful collection of his wins. The grid table at the bottom of the Senna article does provide some information, but it was difficult to tell which was his tenth and twentieth win, and out of how many races each was achieved. Hence, I created this list to provide all the information in one useful place. I have no problem with an AfD to determine what the community judges though. Harrias ^talk 06:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm torn. I tend to agree with the notion that the article is not really necessary. I gotta say though, Harrias, damn good job, nothing bad to say really about the execution of the article. Except for the placement of the images, which at the 4:3 monitor I am sitting on right now push the table down, creating lots of whitespace. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm also a bit undecided. If it stays then I think it would be necessary to establish some criteria for possible future similar articles. Say, multi-World Champions only, &/or minimum 20 wins. But, my initial reaction was similar to that of QueenCake... the information is available in individual articles, it's not much of a stretch to figure it out and it could lead to a rash of other types of article. (Is there a 'list of wins by Cosworth'...for example?) Also agree the image positioning might need looking at, judging by my view on a 14" laptop. Eagleash (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

If there's any merit in keeping it, then I would suggest putting it in the Senna article rather than spinning it off as its own. The rallying articles do something similar, like this. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Another article that could use some serious cleaning for images... Re: Senna: Wouldn't that blow up the article too much? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

We should not be having this article. The man is only fifth in the all-time list of grand prix wins. Sure, Harrias did a good job. Unfortunately not in the right place. This is a general purpose encyclopedia. Not a Senna fan site. Create a Senna fan site if you want to publish things like this. The entire list is duplicate information from is already present in his article. Therefore including it there would be repetitive too. T v x1 20:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

IP editor again

It seems our IP editor of a couple of weeks ago is back, here, here and here, and probably some other IP addresses too, adding multiple images again. I have no time this evening (UK) to try to keep track so this is a bit of "heads up"... in the hope that an eye can be kept on things! Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

He's at it again under here... Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

& here earlier today. Bretonbanquet got him to transfer his images for Jim Clark (he absolutely swamped the page) to the talk page but before that BB & I Had a brief discussion and I've asked for some admin. help as the IP lad just goes on & on. Eagleash (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

He does seem to come to his senses a little bit, now adding galleries, which looks better. I would however still say that the articles would be better with just a smaller, appropriate number of fitting images. The rest can be viewed on Commons. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

All the images have now been removed from James Hunt and placed into a gallery, which in some ways is an improvement, but I agree with the comment above that a few appropriately sited images would be better than the large gallery that is there now. Eagleash (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's best to request semi-protection for a considerable time for the articles that are always disrupted by the IP. T v x1

I would think that there are far too many articles that he has worked on so far and many more that he could possibly "attack" for that to be practical. He has recently entered into limited discussion and there has been some improvement in his editing habits. Admin. are aware and I have compiled a list of the IPs he has used so far (12 that I could find) for future use if necessary. Bretonbanquet Zwerg Nase admin & myself have discussed, to a degree, and in view of the progress made recently it is felt that we see how things go and take a fairly cautious approach in our future dealings. Eagleash (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be a sensible strategy. Note they have already edit-warred, which is by itself reportable behavior. Colin Chapman seems to be their latest target. T v x1 15:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes there has been a limited amount of edit-"skirmishing", but in fairness when he was asked to take it to the talk-page at Jim Clark he did so. Chapman was noted and has been tidied. Eagleash (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake. It was one thing when they were adding too many photos to articles, now they seems to have become really very destructive and idiotic. Pyrop e 17:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Pyrope: I rolled back the edits. However, that table should probably really get a workover? Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you on that point Zwerg Nase, but wholesale removal of non-Championship results based on some fatuous notion of what does and does not constitute part of a vehicle's history and significance... sheesh. Pyrop e 17:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I noticed some edits by them as well. Particularly on Lotus 49. We should really asking for a hard block of the IP range. T v x1 18:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Should I bring this to admin attention? I don't really know what can be done, since a large number of articles are targeted, but maybe they know from experience what to do in situations like these... Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It has been going on for far too long now, and overall he's acting against consensus (despite some useful edits) & we need to seek the best way forward. I had a brief discussion with an admin. a couple of weeks ago and will contact them again. There has to be a way of dealing with it (if not it's a bit of an obvious hole in the 'defences'). Eagleash (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This one was a fun edit summary. Any news from an admin? Pyrop e 16:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The admin I spoke to was only able to suggest we go for a range block via ANI. I looked at the ANI page a few minutes ago and I am not sure of how to go about this & I'm not really in a position to do very much about it today I'm afraid. Eagleash (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Update. Taken to ANI here. Anybody, please chip in... Eagleash (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Eagleash, well done for getting moving on that. Pyrop e 18:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome! Couldn't go on. We've got a 3 day block, which will cover the period when he's usually absent! No doubt his usual abnormal service will be resumed next weekend. 'Keep 'em peeled'. Eagleash (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Just let me know. HighInBC 20:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Further update: There has now been a range block, covering the 2 ranges used, for a week. Eagleash (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

He's back again here nothing too disruptive seen so far but have only looked at a couple of edits. Eagleash (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Update. Template begun in talk-page here. I have done no work with t/plates whatsoever so appreciate it someone could do whatever. To check &/or move it as necessary. Bretonbanquet? Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like an admin got to that before I could. What is the matter with this IP?! Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

How long have you got!? Yes, Tvx tagged it & it's been deleted. I've asked for the content to be restored (to my sandbox or a draft page if poss). So perhaps it can be fettled up & used cos there isn't one for Embassy Hill at the moment. Let you know. Eagleash (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Update; it's now been restored here for anyone who would like to take a look & see if it can be made use of. I've tidied it a bit myself using the (original) Team Lotus template for guidance! Thanks, Eagleash (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Back again here

He's back again here another article started in a talk page here which may be covered in the Larrousse article. @Pyrope: The Cooper T51 results have been messed with again (his edit was reverted last weekend by Trekphiler). I'm not familiar enough with the page to just undo it myself... :P Clearly he's not going to back off or get a proper account etc. The disruption to the Cooper page yet again suggests it might need taking to ANI again or contacting the admin. who posted above. Eagleash (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Update. I've undone the Cooper edit. If anything's not quite right with it, I apologise. Eagleash (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

There's another talk-page-started article here. I've spent a lot of this afternoon chasing around after this guy on various pages and I have no more available time till late this evening (UK). Eagleash (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

And here is another one. Firstly we need stop moving articles that have been created in talk page namespace into the main namespace. This is achieving the complete opposite of what we want. It gives the IP exactly what they want: articles get created through dumping on talk pages first for others to clean the mess. That's not how this project works. If we want to have any chance of success in learning this IP to at least use the draft namespace, we have to show them that dumping articles on talk pages is not producing any results. By the way, somehow they have managed to create an article in the main namespace. How was that possible? Secondly, I'm going to ask help from administrator Diannaa (talk · contribs), who issued the range blocks a while ago, because the continued disruption to Cooper T51, despite a block having been issued for it, is intolerable. T v x1 19:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Well it's been the established way of dealing with the talk page articles since this started. If there were objections to it being done then they should have been raised back in August when the spate of Hill, Lola & Matra articles were created. Having said I agree that it has to stop and if admin. have not yet been contacted then that should happen ASAP as tomorrow will bring another set of edits from yet more different IPs. Heaven knows what's going on with the article apparently created in mainspace if you click history, it looks like you get the revisions for the Lola LC91 article. Eagleash (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Update. I went to Diannaa's talk-page and did not see any posts there relating, so have asked for help. Eagleash (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

There is now a further 2 week range block. Eagleash (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my view is that if they create a reasonably well-formed article in Talk space, we should just move it to article space and be done with it. For whatever reason, they're clearly not interested in following the proper process for creating articles, and I realise it can be seen as "rewarding poor behaviour", but I think deleting useful content from the encyclopedia just because it wasn't created in the proper manner is cutting off our nose to spite our face. DH85868993 (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. And that's the way we've been dealing with it from the start. It has made work for several other editors (not just from the F1 project) but in the end the content has been made usable in most cases. What has been frustrating is the edit-warring, failure to engage and undoing large amounts of work by others. Basically that has been pretty disruptive in several instances, and that is why he's ended up blocked again. I'm quite happy to try to fettle up his articles after they are moved and I think Bretonbanquet may be of a similar opinion. Eagleash (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

McLaren MP4-30 images

An issue has been raised again about the use of certain images in the McLaren MP4-30 article. You can weigh in your opinion in the discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks, T v x1 00:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

In the news

Hi everyone! Hope you all had as nice a time watching this race as I did. I nominated Hamilton's title for the main page. As I am going to bed now (German time), it would be very much appreciated if you could weigh in with your opinion there and maybe take care of changes that need to be made to the respective articles? Also, sorry for the delay in working on the Russian GP article, I was on vacation two weeks ago and it took me a while to get back in the game so to speak... Thanks in advance! Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

complete F1 Records section

looking over the records of several drivers, for races where they retired from the race there is no indication of the reason for the retirement. it would be very nice if there were a simple code such as "ret-m" for mechanical failures, "ret-c" for retired due to contact with another driver, "ret-u" for retired due to unforced driving error — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.211.151 (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Or readers can just follow the link to the article in question. All your proposal does is add an extra layer of complexity to a table that is already relatively complex to begin with. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Prisonermonkeys. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Counting of race victories

Hey everyone! I noticed that the March Engineering article gives their race victory number as three, two achieved by the March team and one by Tyrrell Racing driving a March chassis. However, that victory, the 1970 Spanish Grand Prix, is also counted in the Tyrell article's infobox as a victory for Tyrell. I wonder, shouldn't it just count for one of the two, not both? Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it was a victory for the Tyrrell team and it was a victory for a March chassis, so it seems reasonable (to me) for it to be counted in both articles. Perhaps March Engineering needs two infoboxes, separately detailing their achievements as a team and as a constructor, like Tyrrell Racing has. DH85868993 (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll get to it tomorrow! Zwerg Nase (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Done Feel free to check if I've done everything correctly :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Aston Martin F1 article

During the recent rumors of Force India changing its name to "Aston Martin Racing" next year I noticed there isn't any article that features Aston's past Formula One participation so I'm wondering if the creation of a Aston Martin in Formula One article would be beneficial during this time even if the Force India deal doesn't go through. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a motorsport section in the Aston Martin page, which isn't really up to very much. Aston Martin don't really have a great F1 heritage but do have a strong competition history generally, particularly sports cars. Perhaps the page could be Aston Martin in motorsport, like Maserati. Eagleash (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

A problem may be that the team will be known as Aston Martin Racing, which exists but solely covers the entity created by Prodrive and Aston Martin. Should Formula One results be on this page? And if they are on this page, how does this affect pre-2004 results when Aston Martin Racing did not exist? The³5₉ (Talk) 18:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should wait and see whether they will take over the team, and if they do what they call it, before claiming there are problems. T v x1 18:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Aston Martin Racing is a joint effort with Prodrive, and I think it would be best to keep them separate as that organisation would likely have nothing to do with a F1 team, only the name would be the same. We do need an article for Aston Martin's racing history in sports cars and otherwise, which is woefully uncovered at present, so Aston Martin in motorsport should definitely be created regardless. If there is an Aston Martin team in F1 next year, then perhaps it might warrant having an Aston Martin in Formula One article, but as it stands their effort in the 50s doesn't really warrant being separated from their other racing activities. QueenCake (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

A possible option would be to create the Aston Martin in motorsport article and merge the Aston Martin Racing one into it? Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't do much work on team articles, but it seems to me that the best thing to do would be to follow our own precedent: when Mercedes returned in 2010, we considered them to be a continuation of the team that raced in the 1950s.

But I would wait to see what the FIA does first in terms of how they recognise the team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that we can't decide to go by that precedent or not because we don't know in which capacity Aston Martin will enter the sport. Will they be a true works team, like Ferrari and Mercedes, or will their name simply be used in a sponsorship kind of way, like Marussia, Caterham, Lotus and Spyker (to name of few)? Note that we don't use the XXXX in Formula One for any of those latter four teams. And talking about precedents, we have never considered Lotus a continuation of the original Team Lotus when they returned twice during the last five years, even when in 2011 there was team called Team Lotus. T v x1 17:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, we do know that they will not be a works team, at least not in 2016. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

No, at the moment all we have are guesses from Autosport, Joe Saward and others. Encyclopedias are not news services or fan blogs, and are written past tense, so can we wait until we have something definite to talk about before wasting all this time?. Pyrop e 18:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. T v x1 20:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that the logic behind it is to come to an agreement in advance because people feel that it may be a substantial change, so that if it does go ahead, we're all in agreement and can make the changes quickly rather than trying to play catch up when the changes are made and a dozen people go in a dozen different direction. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason I brought this up was because I wanted to make users aware of possible improvements to articles concerning Aston Martin, If Force India is rebranded Aston Martin then it should be placed in a shared article with Astons previous F1 activities similar to how we have the Mercedes and Renault articles. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well...... Mercedes and Renault returned as works teams, Aston Martin is probably not. So there's a difference. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they arnt a works team, if the team uses the constructor name "Aston Martin" and potentially the same company is behind it then its a no brainer, if we go by that logic then the 2010-2011 seasons should be taken off the Renault article. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No, It is NOT that simple. Again we have three different articles on three clearly different constructors who all simply used the same Lotus constructor name. The difference with the Renault situation in 2010-2011 is that the new owner, Genii capital, of the exact same team kept operating it from the exact same base with mostly the same people under the exact same constructor name. Similarly to Renault themselves taking over Benetton in 2000 and running under the exact same identity as before the takeover for two entire seasons. T v x1 17:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it's just not as simple as that. Like I said before, the key factor is whether they will return as true works team or whether the team will carry their name in a sponsorship kind of way. I will recall again that we didn't consider either of the returned Lotus teams (even the one that was called Team Lotus just like the original) a return of the original one and thus we don't mention them in the original Lotus' article. As long as nothing has been announced on the capacity in which the Aston Martin name will return it simply is a useless effort and a waste of everybody's time to try to decide on a course of action. T v x1 16:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's just do what we always do and see what the FIA considers the team to be (assuming it happens). While I understand the concerns around the Lotus situation, the last thing we want is a repeat of the Manor Marussia situation where we pretty much invented a new team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Worse, we outright invented a new constructor. :-) T v x1 22:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to wait and see what the FIA and FOM recognize them as if it does happen, just to also mention that some sources include that the Mercedes engine will also be rebranded as Mercedes-Benz own 5% of Aston, including a potential technical partnership with the car company but of course we cant act on those rumors until they are confirmed, I'm only trying to help out and get things sorted early so don't get angry at me guys. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

So what do you expect us to do? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

New article

Project members may be interested in this recently-created article: Renault Energy F1 V6 Turbo. DH85868993 (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

TheriusRooney strikes again, creating an article solely for stats creep. I dont know if the article is really salvagable, is the engine relevant enough to need an article? We have very few engine articles. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it could be, if we are willing to put the work into it. With its lacklustre performance over the past two seasons and the tensions between Red Bull and Renault, there is definitely enough there for quite some prose. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

One fundamental question, never mind the stats (which are a WP:BADIDEA if ever I saw one), is: does this article even pass WP:GNG? There are no sources I can find that aren't either simple reportage of the republish-the-press-release type or similar, or originate with Renault themselves. Also, there is something funny about the article that I can't quite put my finger on. It reads like a copyvio, but I can't find any direct source. However, many of the facts included in the technical data are not in the two sources provided which indicates that there is at least one other source out there that has not been cited. Why? Pyrop e 00:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI: copyvios at Stirling Moss

Wholesale copy-paste copyvios at the Stirling Moss article [7] [8] by a user who ignores warnings---eyes needed there please, and also probably admin action. Writegeist (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

New Userboxes

Note: These have only been created for drivers who are signed to 'stable' teams next season Holdenman05 (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

LH44

This user is a fan of Lewis Hamilton

NR6

This user is a fan of Nico Rosberg

SV5

This user is a fan of Sebastian Vettel

KR7

This user is a fan of Kimi Räikkönen

FM19

This user is a fan of Felipe Massa

VB77

This user is a fan of Valtteri Bottas

DR3

This user is a fan of Daniel Ricciardo

DK26

This user is a fan of Daniil Kvyat

This user is a fan of Marcus Ericsson

FN12

This user is a fan of Felipe Nasr

FA14

This user is a fan of Fernando Alonso

JB22

This user is a fan of Jenson Button

Jac Nelleman

FYI, I've started a discussion about the correct spelling of this driver's surname at Talk:Jac Nelleman#Nelleman or Nellemann?. DH85868993 (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:F1Laps

Hey guys, I have a question concerning the lap leader template. I first noticed this at 2015 United States Grand Prix but it also appeared at 2003 San Marino Grand Prix: It appears that sometimes there is a pixel-wide of another colour between two race leaders, as at the USGP at lap 20 and at San Marino at lap 15 and 50. How does that happen? I cannot seem to find the error in the values in the template... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see what you mean. The only things I spot on the locations you point out, are the normal lines that distinguish the different colors. I don't see anything out of the ordinary. Maybe you could make a screenshot? T v x1 23:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a yellow line at lap 20 between Ricciardo and Rosberg that should not be there. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No that should be there. It's a grey line, not yellow, and there is such a line separating each pair of colors in these charts. T v x1 16:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, looks strange to me... Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Renault in Formula One

There is a little too much speculation in the Renault in Formula One article for my taste here concerning the 2016 season. Would you agree? Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree. It should be removed. The 2016 team name provided in that article is pure speculation. The takeover has NOT been confirmed and even if goes through, they might just continue the team as Lotus for the time being, just like they themselves did with Benetton 15 years ago. T v x1 16:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed the section for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Racing team templates (Formula 1, maybe others)

Hello,

I'm curious as to why the racing team templates such as Template:Scuderia Ferrari, Template:Williams etc don't use the built-in group/list layout that make similar "Navbox" templates easier to use, i.e. with sections that are easier to see, especially on first sight or at a glance. Is it because no-one's volunteered to do this? If so, I volunteer to start working through them. 217.46.75.11 (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've made a start. 86.175.91.78 (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the F1 project. If you feel your ideas have been ignored, please don't, but (on the assumption that both of the above posts are from the same editor) it would probably be best if you created a 'proper' wiki account so that you can join the project and make it easier for other editors to communicate with you. In cases like these, when changes are suggested to multiple articles it is usually best to wait for a consensus before proceeding. (And the project may be suspicious of those who edit from IP addresses...especially if there is more than one IP). Eagleash (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I didn't feel that my suggestion was being ignored, I just took finding no response after a few days to mean no consensus against it. I also thought it'd be okay to make a start without setting up an account. I'm willing to continue, but it sounds/looks like I shouldn't. 5.80.82.73 (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Your edits made them worse and more difficult to use -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you find the other "Navbox" templates in the encyclopedia worse and more difficult to use than these ones? 5.80.82.73 (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Tables (maybe for the last time?)

Hey everyone, I have raised this issue repeatedly, but so far no consensus was reached. I urge to finally go back to using the old wikitables again. The matter was also raised in the latest F1 GA review, where the reviewer called the small font a possible "accessibility issue". Also, we again see that the new tables are inferior to the old one when looking at the ugly white border around the DSQ for Massa at the current constructors' table. It would be nice if we could agree to doing it the way it was done for years. While both table formats might have their disadvantages, I feel that the Wikitables are certainly the better way to go.

Best regards, Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The small font is independent from the table class. You can perfectly change that font size without having to change the whole table format. T v x1 16:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I could. But I could also use the table format that is used on every other article type on Wikipedia and that is serviced if display issues arise. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you couldn't actually. Just changing the table class without touching the completely independent font size parameter will not solve the issue reported in that GA review. The change you're campaigning for here is not what was complained about in the GA review. T v x1 16:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Forget the GA review and the font size matter. The question remains if we should move back to the wikitables. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing, but I would like more input before going ahead with it. T v x1 17:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Me too, this should be a decision made by all of us. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

2018 Formula One season

FYI, 2018 Formula One season (a redirect to Formula One) has been nominated for deletion. Editors are welcome to express any opinions they may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

IP editor yet again

Back again (after a 2 week block) here & here yesterday. Starting templates in talk-pages again but otherwise I've not had time to look through all his edits today. Do we need to have templates for Token and Amon Racing? Eagleash (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

He's undone the re-direct of Rebaque HR100 to Rebaque and added content to the page. I think the re-direct was right, car doesn't need it's own page. Ditto with the Token RJ02. Eagleash (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Rebaque HR100 and Token RJ02 have been turned back into redirects and Template:Chris Amon Racing has been nominated for deletion. Editors are welcome to express any views they may have on the proposed deletion of the template at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

After removing the Amon template for deletion notice three times. There is now another 2 week block. Eagleash (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Heads up...Right on cue, shortly after the block ended IP ed. returned yesterday here. Eagleash (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Don Nichols and Donald Nichols (spy)

Hello, all,

Calling for a bit of help here. Question at hand is, is Donald Nichols (spy) the same man as Don Nichols, the racing team manager?

Little is known about the military Nichols after his 1962 retirement except that he died in Alabama in 1992. The racing Nichols bio basically begins at this point. A link at the racing article [9] claims they are the same, but is an unreliable source. A photo comparison between this article's photos and a photo at page 55 in Apollo's Warriors is inconclusive to my eyes. Also, the military Nichols had the reputation of being sloppy in dress; pictures of the racing Nichols show him to be somewhat dapper, with a thinner face.

I am posting this in hopes that someone will prove/disprove the connection between these two.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you don't regard grandprix.com as a reliable source? It is a commercial news website and although it has gone downhill lately, it is built on a very solid foundation. Most of its early contributions, and pretty much all of its GP Encyclopedia section, were written by respected professional journalist, author and sometime historian Joe Saward. Also, you misrepresent that source. Saward points out that the Shadow Nichols was almost certainly in the intelligence services and lived in Japan through large parts of the 1950s and '60s. He then also states that there was a Donald Nichols who was a spy. That source never explicitly states they are one and the same, although the nudge toward drawing your own conclusions isn't subtle! Note also these three points: the OldRacingCars.com profile on the team boss lists Nichols as a former military man; that although the Wikipedia article on the spy states that he died in 1992 no citation is given; and that the Air Commando Hall of Fame website does not list Maj. D. Nichols as "deceased", unlike a lot of their other inductees. The most unreliable info I'm seeing is anything to do with the date and location of the spy's death; where did that come from? Pyrop e 19:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

"Most of its early contributions, and pretty much all of its GP Encyclopedia section, were written by respected professional journalist, author and sometime historian Joe Saward."

I think Saward lost his status as a reliable source a long time ago. He might have been respected and professional once upon a time, but most of the stuff he produces these days is either an unprovoked attack on Vijay Mallya or criticising journalists who he feels have nothing more than a keyboard and an interest in the sport (it's a thinly-veiled attack on Keith Collantine who won over a lot of Saward's fans), and criticisms of readers who go to other sources. I don't know what his early stuff is like, but I would be very wary of any article that he contributed to or is used as a source for. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Um... right. Would you like to point out some factual inaccuracies he has made rather than just ad hominem attacks? I'd agree that his analysis is often lacking in insight, but I haven't ever seen anything factual that he has seriously misjudged. Pyrop e 04:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think they are the same. There are multiple sources (albeit many might be based off the same one) giving his date and location of death in 1992, and from what I've read, his illnesses made him quite a solitary chap after he left the military. Harrias ^talk 09:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you got those sources to hand? Pyrop e 15:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

They were all easy to find on Google. This is one of the sources used in the article. This isn't a reliable source by our measure, but provides some insight into the spy master's character. This is an excerpt from the source used for his death in the article. This is about charges made against him of "lewd and lascivious acts in the presence of a child", which goes on to mention his death in June 1992. This is a photo of the motor racing Don Nichols alive and well in 2014. Harrias ^talk 16:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. If one person knows precisely where the source passages are it seems silly to have many people wasting time blundering about in Google looking for them. They all do indeed seem fairly unequivocal. The inline citations in the article could use some refining, but based on that evidence the two are certainly not the same man. Pyrop e 17:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"Would you like to point out some factual inaccuracies he has made rather than just ad hominem attacks?"

When Sahara bought into Force India, Saward ran a story saying that Mallya was selling the team to Sahara's Subrata Roy. That's what triggered the ad hominen attack; Saward accused Mallya of lying about selling the team, but it was pointed out to him that Mallya's comments were consistent with the press release that he had put out and that he had never implied, much less confirmed, that he was selling the team. Saward willfully misreported it. He has also run dozens of stories on the supposedly-perilous state of Force India's finances (all of which seem to end with Mallya have no choice but to sell the team immediately), but however accurate they may be, any story related to Force India is fruit of the poisonous tree, having been tainted by the above episode. Saward never forgave Mallya for axing Tonio Liuzzi from his line-up, and has waged war against him ever since. As a source, he is completely compromised. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

And how is any of this even remotely relevant to the issue at hand? I honestly can't see any presented source that is written by Joe Saward. T v x1 21:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it taints every single article that he writes about Force India. And given that he writes pretty extensively them, it taints him as a source. I don't think that he passes WP:RS anymore, so I would have serious questions about anything he has wtitten should it be used as a source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, nothing from the hand of Joe Saward has been brought forward here, so utterly irrelevant to this discussion about Don Nichols. If you have concerns about a source, go to the relevant noticeboard. T v x1 02:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Oooh, the whole Force India sale kerfuffle. I love that in trying to use that as an example of misrepresentation, you misrepresent it! 'larious. You also slap a whole load of your own opinion and imaginings in there and claim it as fact (bit like the whole 'competition retirement' section of the McLaren MP4-30 article, so perhaps we should have expected that). Mallya once owned 50% of FI, and that dropped to 42.5% following a wodge of cash from Sahara. Sounds like a sale to me. If Mallya decided to sell his portion by proxy by diluting his own holdings in a company that he controls then we are talking semantics and simple finance bafflegab to cover his blushes; it was a sale. Even you admit that Saward's facts are straight, it is just the interpretation of them that is up for debate. To then extrapolate that everything he has ever written (including during the time he was Autosport's Grand Prix editor??) is suspect is frankly barking mad and simply betrays your own misinformed prejudices. Pyrop e 03:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Saward may have had all of his facts straight and simply misinterpreted them - but given that, once upon a time, he was Autosport's GP editor, how likely do you think it is that he simply missed a key point like that, much less in the context of his vendetta against Mallya? It was a clear and deliberate misrepresentation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not. That is your own interpretation. If the information is that Sahara is buying 42.5% then it is clear that he is buying it from someone. Mallya sold it by proxy, which is what happens when a privately held company dilutes its stock. Looked at objectively, Saward's interpretation is actually a lot more honest than Mallya (and Sylt, and Bernie's troupe of trained monkeys) would like the world to believe. He certainly doesn't like Mallya, that much is clear, but again I will point out that even you can't fault the simple truth that the fact he presents are accurate. Pyrop e 04:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Except that he didn't present it accurately at all. It was quite open to interpretation and his interpretation was clearly shaped by his dislike of Mallya. I don't see how anyone can continue to consider him a reliable, objective source, given that he is so blatantly biased, and as already established, uses his blog for ad hominen attacks. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I too have my reservations regarding your interpretations and representations of Saward's actions. But this is nothing new as you have voiced similar accusations about other sources in the past. And the answer is the same as before: we don't blacklist an entire sure, just because they might have shown some bias regarding one subject. This is exactly similar to us not blacklisting the BBC, despite them having shown clear bias in favor of British drivers and British teams from time to time. Now can we please stop this dispute over Joe Saward and PLEASE focus on the issued that was raised: are the Don Nicholses one and the same? Thank you, T v x1 15:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The point's moot, anyway. Everything Saward produces these days is an op-ed, and therefore inappropriate for day-to-day use; when he does produce regular reporting, he rarely quotes sources. About the only thing he'd be useful for is articles on the decor of French airports. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Renault Driver Programme

Is this article (RF1 Driver Programme) worth a deletion nomination as it doesn't really serve a good purpose and rarely gets updated. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Definitely! No proof of sufficient notability provided in the article.T v x1 23:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Rebaque

Hey everyone! I have been searching Flickr in order to find a photo of a Lotus 79 in alternative livery (mainly Martini Racing) and stumbled upon this photo, which should be available to us shortly: https://www.flickr.com/photos/24041160@N02/4879766048/. The question now is: The photographer says the photo was taken at Silverstone in 1979, and the car number confirms that is must have been 1979. But it does not look like a 79, but rather like a Lotus 78. Is it possible that Rebaque raced the 78 in this GP instead of the 79? Or was it just standing around just in case? Any thoughts? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Does look like a Lotus 78. Small (1994) Guinness complete who's who says raced a 79. Give me a few minutes & I'll look at "Jenks" report of the race, as he would usually comment on spare cars... As Hector had a 78 the year before it seems entirely feasible that it would be taken to the race 'just in case'. Eagleash (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: Yes taken to the race but not used; see here. I did it via the archive in the end, instead of the hard copy I have. You'll need to click the 'zoom page' button and drag (not scroll) the page, to see it right at the bottom of the entry. The transcription is unreadable and doesn't even include the line we need! Eagleash (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eagleash: Wow, thank you for the quick info! It's astonishing which kind of information can be found on the internet so easily... That gives great opportunities for article improvements, if one had the time... Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: Welcome. Motor Sport have digitised their entire 90+ year archive. Unfortunately the firm that did it didn't make a very good job of it & subsequently went bust. Which is why I was working for MS earlier in the year copy-editing. Most pages read a bit like that but that's one of the worst I've seen! You get 10 articles for free, another 5 if you register (free) and if you change browsers you start again from zero. Eagleash (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

That sounds a lot better than that 3 pounds an issue subscription... Not that I wouldn't pay for good content, but if I am just interested in the archive, that's a little much. That archive will definitely help me in some of my plans for next year. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I use it very often! Oh, and it resets to zero each month. Eagleash (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

External links

Our project page has an External links section that did not seem to be up to date. I have removed two and added several new links. Maybe we can discuss if we consider all of those pages reliable sources? I would doubt that that applies for all of them... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Most seem OK to me; not 100% about SKY. & I know nothing about newsonf1. Eagleash (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Car identification

Hi all. I believe the car in File:Brabham BT51.jpg is a BT49C rather than a BT51 and have started a discussion here. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a BT49 from Monaco in 1980. However, it's a copyvio from here and here so has been deleted. Craig (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Walter Wolf Racing

Hey everyone! I have just created the article for the Wolf WR1. Reading about it, it now appears to me as if the WR1-4 are all the same car, just different models. Can someone confirm this? Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Does this help? Seems to confirm what you think. Eagleash (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I will change the article accordingly. Is there any precedence on how this is handled? Should the title of the article be changed? My idea would be to keep the title as it is and point to the other models in the lead? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It's always been my understanding that WR2, WR3 and WR4 were just further examples of the WR1 design (and similarly, WR6 was a second example of the WR5 design). I would leave the article title as is and point to the other models in the lead, per your suggestion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I've made the changes, feel free to look over it and check if I did everything correctly. Thanks for your help! Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. DH85868993 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Should I devide up the results by the different chassis (is that even the plural of chassis?)? It does not really seem warranted, given that we do not do that for any other car. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

As WR1 to WR4 are chassis (yes, chassis is the plural of chassis, like sheep and sheep) numbers and not car models splitting them out would be a degree of specificity that is simply unjustified in a general interest encyclopedia. Flagicons should also not be in the results table (they refer to the driver, not the car). Pyrop e 22:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Lola LC88

Heads up... A recent draft submitted by our IP chum was rejected and subsequently went to MfD here with the result that it was deleted. As part of that discussion, another editor proposed deleting the Lola LC88 page also, for slightly obscure reasons. The proposal was rejected but F1 editors may be interested in the subsequent AfD discussion here. Eagleash (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Eagleash, I would seriously (and I mean that strongly) question your assertion in that debate that all F1 cars are inherently notable by our standards. This isn't a Formula One fanboy/fangirl website, we are a branch of a general interest encylopedia with broader aims and standards. We have discussed this in the past, and my understanding was that if a topic, any topic, can't pass WP:GNG then it it not notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I know that other projects have decided to introduce silly get-out clauses to argue that their pet topics should be exempt from GNG, but in pretty much every case this is blinkered special pleading by a special interest group that really should be setting up their own dedicated wiki site rather than cluttering up Wikipedia and creating yet more marginal content that needs to be patrolled for vandalism, plagiarism, reliability and other important encyclopedic standards by an increasingly small editorial community. Pyrop e 22:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Pyrope Firstly, if you have issues you wish to raise with me, surely the place to do so would be my talk-page. Secondly, I of course agree with what you say. I really meant to say ‘most’ in my comment but it was a slightly irritated & (time) pressured response to Andy Dingley’s comments, and the whole rather daft saga to begin with, including a comment made yesterday, by another editor, at the MfD that ‘no one season car could be notable, ever’. I could gave gone back and changed it but I was called away shortly after and it slipped down the agenda a bit. (~~I forgot!~~ Too busy). After other comments had been made it did not seem right to return and do so. Finally, I think there are enough good editors involved here for it to ever turn inward upon itself in the way that you fear could happen. Eagleash (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Eagleash, I'm not being thoughtlessly critical, but that was a comment you made in an open discussion and that you drew to the attention of the users of this page. As the topic is certainly of relevance to this WP the most inclusive and open course of action is to raise my concerns where they can be seen by people with an interest in the application of notability standards to WP:F1 articles. I didn't add my comment directly under yours at the deletion discussion because my point wasn't on that topic, but hiding it away on a usertalk page is unhelpful. I certainly believe you acted in good faith and your reasons for not correcting yourself earlier are entirely understood, but the course of action resulted in a well-established member of this WP being on record as stating a project standard that just doesn't exist. As for whether or not we have enough people to patrol 'our' articles, I'm afraid that tipping point came a few years back. It isn't so much that I "fear could happen", but that I see it already happening. The recent issues with the unknown-IP-editor-from-Salisbury Plain are just the tip of the iceberg, and all too often I am finding odd edits that have stood for many days if not weeks because they slipped through the increasingly large holes in our page watching nets. Heaven help us if DH ever decides to retire! Pyrop e 00:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to back up my colleague and state that it is an incorrect assumption that all Formula One cars ever produced are notable enough for a general purpose encyclopedia like wikipedia. Which cars are notable enough is determined by checking the amount of coverage they got in mainstream reliable sources and by looking at its overall performance in the whole picture of the sport's history. Some constructors have made such miserable extremely short-lived attempts at competing in the world championship that having an article specifically for their car is just not warranted. If anything the car can then be covered in the constructor's article. T v x1 01:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we've already completed some action along the lines of what Tvx1 is saying there. I recall quite recently redirecting some of this IP's car articles to the team/constructor article – particularly those teams that only produced one car during their time in F1. No sense in a short-ass article about a shortlived team, then a separate article about their one and only hopeless car. Certain teams (Ferrari, McLaren etc) should probably have articles about all their cars, and a good few others as well, but we should be careful not to apply that across the board. That said, Andy Dingley was wrong to say that one-season cars can't be notable – that's almost all the current cars for a start – and that completely ignores the achievements of any given car. A car that only raced three times but won a race would be notable, whereas a car like the Kauhsen WK isn't, and should remain described in its parent article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pyrope, I still feel it's a bit disrespectful to raise issues with another editor, other than at their talk-page. I don't believe your comments were any more relevant here (which was only a post of a link for interested parties) than at the AfD debate. However as I've indicated previously, I don't disagree that my hurried comment was not strictly accurate and I’ve amended my post at the AfD and provided a clarifying note; not that I can immediately think of a way anyone would be able to ‘hold it against us‘ as it were, in any future discussions. Perhaps you have a scenario in mind? As for the IP guy from Wiltshire, this is another furore he has sparked off by submitting, and re-submitting, several times, a low standard draft (the LC87) without fixing the problems. Bretonbanquet and I seem to spend quite a lot of time sweeping up after each of his editing blitzes and there's always plenty of work for anyone who fancies sorting his stodgy prose and strange punc./caps/tense etc. Not to mention the total lack of references. His recreation of the Lotus 64 page was a shambles, before we & DH tidied it up some. Now, that is a page that might be considered non-notable. As were the Token and Rebaque car articles which were re-directed recently. Oh and it wasn't Andy D who made the comment about one-season cars but another editor who I don't recall ever seeing before. Eagleash (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Well apologies that you don't like an open system, but if you go stating opinions in open settings I will respond in the open as well. This wasn't an issue about your editing behaviour or relationship to other editors, but a specific riposte to a statement that you made regarding the work of this WP and had linked to from this page. As far as the IP editor is concerned, you rather illustrate my point. In past times there would have been a small army of prolific editors to share the work of combating and curtailing their disruption. We have had some persistent issues previously (see this joker) and it does take a village to respond. So many of the most prolific people have since had to slow down a lot (for myself, I'm not on for more than half an hour a day these days and haven't been for a while) or have simply disappeared, and although we have some good people here now they are fewer than previously, we have more pages to patrol than ever, and that ratio changes for the worse each year. Pyrop e 08:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The link to the debate was posted before the comment IIRC correctly. So it wasn't a link to the comment as implied. As it is you've exaggerated quite a small heat of the moment mistake (which could be easily fixed) into a larger issue. Not sure what your motive was/is or what you expected to achieve. In a similar situation I would go the other editors talk-page and then something like 'thanks for bringing this to people's attention, but I think 'this' is not right, please can you fix it'? Problem solved without a lot of unnecessary to-ing & fro-ing. Eagleash (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I started wondering. It's there anything in the LCXX F1 cars articles that makes it necessary for each of them having a separate article and that makes it impossible to cover them adequately in the entrant's, Larousse, article? T v x1 02:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair point... the answer is probably, 'not really'. Eagleash (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

So, should we merge them with Larousse then? T v x1 19:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I think they're too long (and there are too many) to merge with Larrousse. That article is already quite long. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Motorsport.com copyright violation

It would appear that the recently relaunched Motorsport.com has decided to fill its reference articles on the current Formula One teams by the simple expediency of copying the relevant Wikipedia articles, without correct attribution. Compare for example their team profile of Ferrari and our article. While copying Wikipedia is normally fine, and indeed encouraged, you are required to provide proper attribution as detailed here. I'm not sure there is much we can do about, beyond sending them a message pointing out the legalities, but while they continue to host our content some articles here could be hit by copyright violation notices, in the incorrect assumption that we copied them. Please remain aware of this. QueenCake (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, and highly irresponsibly, as far as we the editors are concerned Wikimedia's official stated position on this can be summarized as "tough shit, you are on your own". I can feel the warm fuzzies starting even now. Wikimedia state many times in their documentation that they regard themselves solely as host to our content, and therefore although they demand that we release stuff on CC licences they are going to do precisely squat to help us enforce them. The only solid advice given is here, and that basically involves sending pro forma letters to the violator; if that doesn't work you send a pro forma letter to the host ISP; if that doesn't work... erm... lawyers? Yup, that's Wikimedia's answer, find yourself a lawyer. Great. Pyrop e 21:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, we could at least give them a little shitstorm and all write angry emails and - if available - spread the word around on social media? Try to destroy their reputation in the F1 interested community if they don't stop? Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I started. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

How? Pyrop e 07:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrote a comment under the article and tweeted about what they are doing, linking to their account name. Maybe if I bring the matter to their attention this way, they'll make the proper changes on their own. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice work. Pyrop e 10:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I tweeted about it (via selective tweets also to FB)...@-mentioned that Motor Sport (magazine) might not be pleased. Eagleash (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Good! :) But are motorsport.com and Motor Sport Magazine really related? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

No! That's the point.... (I see you spotted my tweet). Eagleash (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Well hopefully someone there will notice and do the right thing! It does rather anger me that some people seem to think it's fine to take our content without any attribution at all, and worse claim it under their own copyright. The Creative Commons licences are deliberately designed to facilitate easy sharing and adaptation while crediting the original authors, so it is not hard to comply. One day, perhaps, the Wikimedia Foundation will put some effort into enforcing the licence they have chosen. QueenCake (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Just spotted that they have open commenting on their Facebook page... Sunlight being the best disinfectant, and all that, I thought I'd start the ball rolling in a nicely visible forum. Pyrop e 20:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I followed suit! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Surely we should be contacting Motorsport.com directly and not making public posts on social media or comment sections. Its a tad unprofessional to handle things in that manner. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes and no. I'd say it was unprofessional to have ripped off a copyrighted source, and frankly one of these entities is a for-profit corporation run by people earning salaries, and another is a volunteer effort run by people donating their time. I have little to no sympathy for a corporation that profits from theft. Pyrop e 22:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Pyrope. Making it public serves two purposes: 1) I believe that it can resolve the matter faster because motorsport.com comes under pressure. 2) It sets an example that it's not something that Wikipedia's community is gonna be standing idly by to. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record: Their Facebook profile is busy posting stuff, but no response to our posts there... Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

They're not moving. There's a phone number on their FB page (+1 305-507-8799). Anyone living in the US fancy calling and telling them what they do wrong? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Twirlypen is American, I believe. T v x1 16:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Still, no reaction from motorsport.com... Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why I wasn't alerted to the tag before. But unfortunately, while I am American, I don't know the legalities of what is going on here, so I don't think I'd be much help giving them a ring. Basically Motorsport is taking credit for our work?? Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 20:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's also going on at other series. Jeff Gordon's article got copied over to Motorsport.com as well. Zappa 24 Mati 23:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't be hard for them to say "copied from Wikipedia on..." at the bottom of the article at least (which is, I believe, the minimum required attribution). Of course, there's two other cans of worms here: first, in the case Zappa mentioned above, the Copyright Cops have already tagged some of Wikipedia's articles as copyvio of Motorosport.com's(!!), and secondly and more insidiously, how long before people start "referencing" using these copied articles, Motorsport.com having erstwhile been a decent source? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone followed the steps laid out above in regards to sending notices directly to the company? Facebook posts are useless, you're sending a notice to a media person who has absolutely no clue about copyright status, they're completely different sections of a company. The³5₉ (Talk) 10:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I did send an email to the global and UK contact addresses Motorsport.com provides when I originally brought this to your attention, but I never received any reply. If they are aware of it, they appear to be ignoring the issue, likely because none of us can start any formal legal action. QueenCake (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Team Lotuses

Someone has proposed that the articles on the original Team Lotus and the 2010's Team Lotus are merged. You can weigh in your opinion in the discussion here. Weirdly, If you look at the talk history, the proposal was posted by a different "name" that the one they signed it with. T v x1 02:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)