Talk:2010 Formula One World Championship/Archive 5

2010 Calendar
Can you please post the EST starting times and dates? There are hundreds of thousands of F1 fans in US and reading the article would require each one to convert time from UTC to EST, or the other US time zones.

Thanks a lot. F1Nas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanchev (talk • contribs) 00:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But if you did that, you'd then have to add time zones for Australians, because there are a lot of Australian fans. And you'd halso have to take into account Japanese and Chinese race fans. We've always used local time, because that's where the race is, and Greenwich time, because that's a universally-accepted definition. Believe me, if Greenwich ran through New York City, we'd be using New York City time instead. Besides, if you get on the official Formula 1 website, you can see the race start time in your time zone. Just go to the race info page and you'll see an infobox on the right-hand side listing all the times of all the sessions for that race. Click "Convert to My Local Time" and you'll see the race start time there and then.
 * So no, we're not going to add stating times and dates for America simply because America doesn't have them on the page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I know I've said to be nice before, but what a stupid suggestion! If we did that, we'd have to do it for every other time zone in the world!  I'm in Australia, so I'd want my time zone on there as well!  Please people, get real!!--bRoDy59 08:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The start times are wrong for China and Turkey - they should be 15:00 starts for both events with UTC being 07:00 and 12:00 respectively. Can somebody please update as I'm unable to edit due to being a new(ish) member. Smithy123456789 (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Testing "summary"?
How is it the section on pre-season testing is now longer than many individual race summaries, and even longer than information on the FIA-FOTA dispute? The summary was supposed to be short and concise, not the largest thing in the article. It's testing, it's not that important to need that indepth of a summary, especially all these lap times that mean absolutely nothing. The359 ( Talk ) 20:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is ridiculously long. Most of that info is simply not notable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What happenned to one or two sentences. --Falcadore (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to recap from previous discussions, pre-season testing is comparable to training sessions performed by football teams. Exactly how much coverage of football training sessions does wikipedia provide? --Falcadore (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My $0.02: while testing is worth mentioning, it probably doesn't need to be anything more than a) testing dates and locations, b) the fastest person from each overall test (ie after three or four days, not the fastest man from each day) and c) any important events that happened (ie bad weather, someone wipes out and destorys the car, etc). Just do it the same way as we do practice sessions on the race pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be regrowing to its original size, once again... The359 ( Talk ) 20:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just went over it with a set of pruning shears. Could probably do with some more work, though. Prisonermonkeys (talk) (don't know time and date as posting from public computer and not signed in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.180.1.224 (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

USF1 note
I added a bit in the USF1 note, feel free to edit it or remove it!--Brody59 (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Lotus
On the page, it says Lotus is called the Lotus F1 Racing team, whereas their official website just calls themselves Lotus Racing. Should we change it to match the official website?? --Brody59 (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's difficult but the official F1 website and the entry list use "Lotus F1 Racing" which means we should probably leave it until the final entry list says otherwise Duds 2k (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did change it today, because the official F1 site calls them Lotus Racing. See []. --Brody59 (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

minor editing is required in 'The unsuccessful applicants are known to include'
Epsilon Euskadi, an established Spanish team which has run cars in various junior single-seater formulae, and has also built its own Le Mans Prototype.[101] Epsilon remains interested in securing an entry for 2010, following the withdrawal of the BMW Sauber team.[102] - This place has now been taken by BMW Sauber so maybe rewording is required?

Team Lotus,[107] established by Formula Three team Litespeed and designer Mike Gascoyne who had recently parted with Force India, and purchased rights to the Lotus name from David Hunt.[108][109] - Lotus now have a place on the grid, so this needs removing.

(Zeoace (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC))


 * There were two Lotus entries. One was Team Lotus, the other was Lotus F1 Racing. They are different entities. Readro (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)#


 * Done. Could do with more editing probably.Tubefurnace (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

foot notes
Can we remove some of these foot notes please;

1.^ - Drivers officially listed as third driver for the team. In the event that one of their two regular drivers is unable to race or replaced mid-season, the third driver will assume driving duties for the team. [The team/s can pick any driver or hire another driver from another team like last year in Ferrari, this is a pointless footnote!]

5.^ - Álvaro Parente was announced as an official test and reserve driver for Virgin Racing.[74] However, due to the Instituto do Turismo de Portugal having not completed a sponsorship agreement for the driver, Parente will not be part of Virgin Racing.[86]  [If he's not driving he's not driving, maybe we should put a failed f1 drivers list under exited F1 or something]

(Zeoace (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Whoever deleted the footnotes above, can you please do the following things:
 * 1. Replace the BMW Sauber and Renault Note
 * 2. Fix-up the note numbers in the table.
 * At the moment, it's even more of a mess than before they were gone. If you're going to do something, please do it right!  --Brody59 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've actually gone through and cleaned it out. I've re-added the Sauber reference, because if there's anything that's garnered a collective "WTF!?" from the fans, it's Sauber's use of the BMW name. Secondly, when the teams can pick any driver to fill in for a regular, some - like Ho-Pin Tung - have been given priority over the other test drivers. That's what that footnote was for: to mark the drivers who were at the top of the food chain. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, who is on the top of the reserve driver chain is a trivial piece of information that has no bearing on the 2010 Formula One season.  The359  ( Talk ) 21:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, looks much better now =]... how ever sorry to be picky again, we in away, have 2 footnotes about USF1 about missing testing and first 4 races one under launch date and one under teams, could we not just have 1 foot note say have an anchor link like;

Launch Date USF1[Symbol] - TBA - TBA [symbol] - Click here for more info

2010 Teams USF1 - blah - blah - blah [Symbol] - due to money and other reasons they have asked to miss the 4 four races and winter testing... not set out in that way but just seems pointless reading the same footnotes twice in a space of a minute or less =]

(Zeoace (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC))

Scuderia Ferrari article
I'd like to start a major re-write of said article. I'm willing to get stuck in and do a lot of work myself, but first I wanted to run my ideas past you lot. The main problem is the excessive detail about recent races. Instead of a few hundred words per decade, there are in some cases hundreds of words about individual races in 2008 and 2009. Can we agree that this is unsuitable? It doesn't give the story of Scuderia Ferrari, just overwhelms the reader with information. There's a general point here concerning repetition of race information. My thoughts would be that a race page would be about what happened in that race, team pages would give an overview of the teams performance over each season. Please see the talk page, here. thanks, Tubefurnace (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've cross-posted the above to WT:F1. DH85868993 (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking here? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I went temporarily insane?! Clearly I meant to put it at WT:F1 but mis-aimed. Sorry. Tubefurnace (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Esteban Gutierrez
Is Esteban Gutierrez Sauber's test driver, or just in a working relationship with them? The article is kind of vague about it all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed it from the page, as I read it to mean he was just working with the team and possibly be working up to being a test/reserve driver.--Brody59 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Similar situation to Jules Bianchi at Ferrari. - mspete  93  16:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

2010 Grands Prix
A question, I notice the bulk of 2010's Grands Prix are being fleshed out into articles, but at the moment contain only infobox and race is in such and such place, and none of it is referenced, including races that are eight months into the future. The season has not yet begun, do we really want to be opening up such distant events which do absolutely nothing more than duplicate information already available in the 2010 season page?

Should the articles only be opened up when say maybe a month or so away unless, like the British Grand Prix, there is quite a bit of pre-race activity? We've never established when might be a good time to start individual GP articles, which lead to some edittors beginning articles still at the time two years into the future.

What are people's thoughts? --Falcadore (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no serious issues with it. I mean, they have to be created sooner or later, right? I think it's important that we have at least one or two made in advance, but I see no point in deleting pages only to make them again a few weeks or months later. Sure, it's closer to the date and therefore more relevant, but I remember doing race reports last season and most were made during the early stages. It's also convenient, because having all the pages pre-made allows us to simply copy-paste the qualifying and race tables in and marking them with hide tags rather than have to go through one at a time and make them. It's an issue that's worth discussion, but if the pages have already been made, I don't think they warrant action. If they hadn't been created yet, discussing when to do so would be a different story. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind anyway, don't mind me. Move along! Move along! --Falcadore (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We are into the year of the current season. Preloading the tables (and hiding them) worked well last year. Doing this now gives us a chance to get everything prepared, with the article structure in place ready for use when needed. Mjroots (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

USF1
Oh come on. Just about every respectable source has announced the team has collapsed, yet Wikipedia insists on keeping them in! Jonathan McLeod (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The team has collapsed, but they still have an entry. Surely this isn't hard to understand. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you and whoever else has been cleaning up the mess today. Eightball (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case then we should either remove USF1 from the entry list or we revert to this list http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/f1releases/2009/Pages/f1_2010_entry_list.aspx Jonathan McLeod (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We will just have to wait untill the fia say something and come out with a new entry list.--WrcF1(Talk) 23:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WrcF1 is right - we don't do anything ourselves - we wait until there's a new FIA entry list. We don't add anything till it's official, so we don't take anything off till it's official either. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So why are there drivers on the list that aren't on the last FIA entry list? Jonathan McLeod (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Because the last update on that list is 30/11/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.90.110 (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * USF1 have an entry. USF1 can race if they, or someone that buys them turns up, they are a 2010 F1 team until then. Drivers that are not on the list are ONLY there if the team themselves has confirmed them as a driver Duds 2k (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a ridiculous inconsistency really. So a team can announce they won't participate, but yet they remain on the entry

list, whereas if a driver announces they will/won't be racing for a team that can be amended? Jonathan McLeod (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bernie Ecclestone: USF1 out of the race http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/formel-1/ecclestone-bestaetigt-ende-von-usf1-1768857.html

Time to edit out USF1 When the boss of Formula 1 says they are out, then they are out.

What do you mean, edit out? They were on the list of entrants and a record should remain of their existence. Oh, and please sign your posts (four tildes). Britmax (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there is a note to say they won't be competing, but there is yet to be anything from FIA or F1, so they are still entered. - mspete  93  18:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the entry list. Sauber take US F1's numbers, with a note about the US F1 situation. Cs-wolves  (talk)  20:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I was right! - again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.90.110 (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If I could direct your attention to here!. In 1995 Larrousse lodged their entry for the 1995 season, but in the end could not take part in the 1995 season as they team folded. It is established precedent that we record all of the entries, regardless of whether they take part in the races or not. It is a not insignificant detail that does deserve to be recorded for posterity. --Falcadore (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "I was right!!" <-- no you weren't. They were on the entry list. Now they are not and are gone. If you want to edit an F1 rumours site then get a blog.  There was every possibility that they could have had a Campos-style buyout for instance. The reason drivers are different is that all that needs to happen is the team needs to employ then (within reason).  For teams that only people with the say on them competing is the FIA. Duds 2k (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you sign you entries that will make verification of your claim easier by allowing us to see who was right about what, and when (and whether) you were right before, so you can be right again. Sign with four tildes (hash key and shift, x 4). Then we might have some faith in your ability to quote sources. And the USF1 are more than a historic footnote, important though it is to record that; their existence meant that one possibility picked from Ntech, Lola, Prodrive (and possibly Stefan) were denied an entry. So just by existing they have influenced the 2010 entry list. Real crystal balling would be the length of time it will now take someone else to dare to propose another US entry after this fiasco but i'm not even going there. Britmax (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is... where or what do we say about them, do they go into exited/failed f1 team? (Zeoace (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC))


 * There's an "Unsuccessful Applicants" section. They might go there as they were left out of the latest entry list (although I can see how this would be debatable). Britmax (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

the catch is, they have got an entry so they were part of F1 2010 season but pulled out - so must be exited F1? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeoace (talk • contribs) 13:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * They should be in the successful applicants section, as they were successful in applying. It doesn't mean they raced. - mspete  93  16:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sauber numbers (yes, again!)
What is the source for Sauber having the numbers 22 and 23? I had a look around over the net and couldn't find anything!--Brody59 (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This FIA entry list. Cs-wolves  (talk)  20:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It does prove the point that the several people whining that we didn't need a source because they were bound to be 26 and 27 should probably learn a lesson about fact checking :) Also we probably need to remove Stefan from the entire page except the failed entries as they're now confirmed to not have one and so shouldn't be included here where we're talking about the FIA F1 championship rather than specific teams themselves. Duds 2k (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Korean Grand Prix
According to this - the Korean grand prix starts at 15.00 local time (6.00 UTC) not 14.00(5.00) as in the article. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Unprotection
It was agreed when semi-protection was applied that once all drivers were known the article could be unrpotected. It now looks like all drivers and teams are known, so are there any strong objections to unprotecting the article at this stage? Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Go for it. My ownself would err on the side of caution for a day or two, but that's just me. I see no case for keeping the page locked. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll unprotect tomorrow when I'm back on my own pooter, unless another admin beats me to it. Mjroots2 (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Article has now been unprotected. Mjroots (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Lopez
Jose Maria Lopez has now ruled out being test/reserve at Hispania/HRT deathe gecweald 11:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deaþe gecweald (talk • contribs)

Campos - Hispania
Has the name change been approved by the FIA? If not the various renames should be reverted. --Falcadore (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The latest FIA entry list here published today lists them as 'HRT F1 TEAM', but does that mean the name change has been approved? Schumi  555  21:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like it. It also looks like Sauber have been given USF1's numbers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC) *edit* Oops, I see that's been brought up already. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Slightly off-topic, but still related: when we write up race reports, will we be referring to them as "Hispania" or "HRT"? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My guess is that HRT is just a casual abbreviation in the same way as Toro Rosso is sometimes referred to as STR. I think we should use the full name. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * However, the acronym could prove to be more popular.-- Midgrid  (talk)  22:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This suggests that for some reason the FIA have not allowed Hispania, and so HRT has been used instead. - mspete  93  22:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, HRT... couldn't they think of anything a bit more... racy? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually HRT makes me think of either Hart (racing) or Honda. The359  ( Talk ) 22:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the Holden Racing Team has been referred to as HRT for over a decade but it does show that we are all male as any female edittor would have brought up Hormone Replacement Therapy. --Falcadore (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm for referring to the team as Hispania Racing F1 Team. The reason being is that HRT is an acronym. Now, I know we have BMW Sauber instead of Bavaria Motor Works Sauber, but we all know who BMW is. HRT on the other hand, could really mean anything and - as has been pointed out - there's also the Holden Racing Team. Hispania have also issued a statement saying that HRT stands for "Hispania Racing Team". This is a bit like the argument I used a while ago for renaming Mercedes GP Petronas Formula One Team: the "official" name is clunky. Mercedes GP Petronas Formula One Team will simply be referred to as Mercedes GP by everyone; likewise, I expect that HRT will be known as Hispania, even if it appears as HRT on the entry list. I think referring to a team by their "common" name instead of the "official" name is perfectly acceptable. This page can show the team as Hispania Racing F1 Team, with a line on the team page reading "Hispania Racing F1 Team, formally known as HRT F1, etc". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it's a bit weird this. Whereas Toro Rosso are entered as SCUDERIA TORO ROSSO (I) and Mercedes are shown as MERCEDES GP PETRONAS FORMULA ONE TEAM, the former Campos entry is listed on the official doc merely as HRT F1 TEAM (ESP), which I think is an important difference.  I don't think anyone's really going to call them Hispania any more than, if we drop down a division, anyone refers to the full version of say "ART GP" Duds 2k (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The team refer to themselves as Hispania. Apparently they're listed as HRT on the entry list because the FIA doesn't recognise "Hispania" as a word (go figure). But if the team go around calling themselves Hispania, then to me, that means they're Hispania. The entry list is simply a formality. The two most telling indicators of what the actual team name will be are a) how the team refer to themselves at their car launch and b) how they appear on the grid during the race broadcast (ie Senna is shown as "Senna, Hispania-Cosworth" or "Senna, HRT-Cosworth"). For now, I think we should refer to them as Hispania because they do, and because I can't think of many Wikipedia articles that are listed by their acronym rather than their actual name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we'll need a resolution here. This is causing some contention. I'm for referring them to Hispania because that's what they refer to themselves as. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Who says they refer to themselves as this? The FIA entry list and the F1 website both refer to them as HRT, and as a result the TV graphics will refer to them as HRT. Until they get a website with some of their own press releases/news stories we cannot tell what they refer to themselves as. All they've said (as far as I know) is that HRT stands for Hispania Racing Team. - mspete  93  16:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But surely they can't be known as the Hispania Racing Team F1 Team. One of those Teams has to be redundant. - Edible plywood (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Who says they refer to themselves as Hispania? They do! In their press releases, they explain that HRT stands for Hispania Racing Team. Their car is called the Hispania HRT. And if you look at the photos of their car, you can clearly see that the team logo is presented as "Hispania Racing F1 Team". The "HRT" is simply a formality, registered with the FIA because the FIA does not recognise "Hispania" as a word. I'm willing to bet that the entry list is the only place they will be referred to as HRT. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Full argument here Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Constructors table
is this ok i think it is easyer and quicker to fill in. --WrcF1(Talk) 20:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. The way we have is fine: it's informative and it's complete. The hard work comes from actually creating the table; filling it in is actually pretty simple. You just need to know the coding. Stripping it down because it's "easier" is no real reason to stop doing what we've been doing for years. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed with PM. --Falcadore (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone is going to have to go through and fix up the table in the actual page. WrcF1 has gone through and edited the above version in. I tried to have a go and make it look as it is supposed to be, but failed horribly and I didn't knw how to fix it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we need the table like it is because all it is doing is repeating what is in the drivers table so why can it not just be the points they have got.--WrcF1(Talk) 13:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do need the table like that. "Repeating what is in the drivers' table" shows the breakdown of points. So if McLaren walk away from a race with twenty-five points, you can see it was because Button won and Hamilton retired. Or because Hamilton scored fifteen points and Button ten. Your issue seems to stem from the way the table is drawn up and the complexity of it, but once the table is in place, it doesn't need to be re-drawn. And if you don't know where the coding goes, there's always someone else who will know where it's supposed to be and so will make sure the table is complete.
 * In short, there is absolutely no reason to change the table. It's worked fine until now, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The table ain't broke. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

European GP
I know the European Grand Prix currently takes place in Spain but shouldn't it have the European flag next to it rather than the Spanish one? - Edible plywood (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We thrashed this out last year. The race is run by a Spanish authority rather than a pan-European one, and generally we've tender to use host nation because of several examples, for example the Pacific Grand Prix, when there is not an appropriate flag to use. It has just mostly been consistency to not use supranational (like Europe/Pacific), or for that matter sub-national entities (like Caesar's Place Grand Prix and races like Pau, Pescara, Pedrables etc). --Falcadore (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See here for what Falcadore has described. Cs-wolves  (talk)  08:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We decided to move the flag from the race column to the circuit column in order to solve the issue. The flags are for the track, not the race. - mspete  93  09:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Constructors section (7.2)
Is it me or is the 2009 table still on the 2010 article??  - Jameson L. Tai   talk ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  13:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * it need to be filled in but i cant do it--WrcF1(Talk) 13:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been fixed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup, so realistically how pissed off was everyone editing the same scores all at once? :D  - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  15:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what the inuse-setion template is for. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

where do u get this template?--WrcF1(Talk) 22:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like this:
 * inuse-section
 * Be warned, however: it doesn't guarantee that people won't edit it. I've run into trouble before where I've used it to mark a qualifying table on the race report pages and people have simply ignored it and edited in the pole-sitter or whatever. Given the rush to edit stuff in that follows a race, I'd say your chances of actually getting people to follow it - especially IP edits - are one in a verylarge number. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Be warned, however: it doesn't guarantee that people won't edit it. I've run into trouble before where I've used it to mark a qualifying table on the race report pages and people have simply ignored it and edited in the pole-sitter or whatever. Given the rush to edit stuff in that follows a race, I'd say your chances of actually getting people to follow it - especially IP edits - are one in a verylarge number. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 Formula One - New team entry process
A user has split this from the article and given it its own entry. Does it really deserve it? - mspete  93  15:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In short, no. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

whats the point in this.--WrcF1(Talk)  21:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, it doesn't need to be split. Sure, it was a little long, but it was also good. It fit in. It was useful. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The section can be easily trimmed down, we don't need a history for every known entrant. The359  ( Talk ) 08:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, in its current state, it could possibly be worked into the page on the FIA-FOTA wars, beause there's already a section on the new teams there. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Splitting it off actually isn't a bad idea. The 2010 F1 article is getting bogged down in certain areas, and the new teams process is certainly an item of limited value next to the actually season of racing itself. I'd certainly not be in favour of merging it back in again. --Falcadore (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could work in in in a table form, ie:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="font-size:85%;"

!Team !First round !Second Round (Toyota withdrawal) !Third Round (BMW withdrawal) !2010 Grid ! Virgin Racing ! USF1 ! myf1dream
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * No
 * No
 * No
 * No
 * No
 * }
 * Or something similar. Basically, a graphical representation of how far each prospective team actually made it. I'm thinking something like a coloured bar to show their progress. Like on the page for the Gran Turismo games, they have a colour-coded table that highlights which racing circuits were included in which games. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because that's what we need, more tables that don't explain information as well as actual prose. The359  ( Talk ) 03:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hell no! More tables? Argh! --Falcadore (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I said it was a solution; I didn't say it was a good solution. And at least I'm making suggestions here. The information on the selections process is relevant to the article, but not so relvant or in-depth that an article of its own is justified. What's your solution to that? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty certain I already offered one. Section on new entry applications but trimmed down and not as thorough.  The359  ( Talk ) 07:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you vague that up a little? I mean, what do you think would be just enough content? A list of names and nothing more? Maybe a bit of detail - no more than a sentence - on the actual racing teams (ie Epsilon Euskadi, the revived Brabham, etc), or something more? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I honestly think it could all fit into two or three well written paragraphs. No bulleted lists as this is not a comprehensive list, we don't know every submission.  The359  ( Talk ) 08:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The FIA confirmed they had received fifteen or sixteen entries. One of the two; I can't remember since it was nearly year ago. But there's fifteen or sixteen entries in the list. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The FIA confirmed they had received fifteen or sixteen entries. One of the two; I can't remember since it was nearly year ago. But there's fifteen or sixteen entries in the list. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed re-write
Okay, I'm starting a sub-section on this one. Following The359's suggestion of two or three well-written paragraphs, I'm going to put a proposal up. It goes like this:

[continuing on from existing paragraph]


 * The three teams on the entry list released in July 2009 included Campos-Meta, a Spanish team led by former driver and GP2 team owner Adrian Campos; Manor, an F3 team run by John Booth and designer Nick Wirth; and USF1, a team created by former designer Ken Anderson and journalist Peter Windsor. Following the withdrawal of BMW Sauber, Lotus Racing was accepted to the grid. Manor became known as Virgin Racing after Richard Branson's Virgin Group purchased naming rights to the team, while Campos-Meta was reimagined as Hispania racing after investor Jose Maria Cabarante purchased the team from Adrian Campos shortly before the first race of the season. USF1 officially withdrew from the championship in late February-early March following months of speculation and accusations from whistleblowers that the team had been crippled my mismanagement for months.


 * The FIA also had several entry bids from other racing teams including World Series by Renault and Le Mans entrant Epsilon Euskadi, Dave Richards' highly-successful Prodrive outfit and Italian touring car team N.Technology as well as re-imaginings of former teams March, Brabham, Lola Cars and Team Lotus (not to be confused with Lotus Racing). Other expessions of interest came from Team Superfund, an Austrian outfit to be fronted by former driver Alex Wurz and myf1dream.com, a team established by fans of the sport and funded by their donations.


 * Of the most interest was Stefan Grand Prix, crated by Zoran Stefanovic and hailed as Serbia's first Formula 1 team. Stefan claimed to have acquired the remains of Toyota's abandoned TF110 chassis and engine and had access to Toyota Motorsport's former headquarters in Cologne, Germany. After being rejected from the gird, Stefanovic filed a complaint with the European Commission over the entry selection process and then announced his intentions to continue development of the Toyota chassis, re-badged as the Stefan S-01, with the team even going so far as to send equipment to Bahrain, Australia and Malaysia. After several difficulties including the cancellation of a planned test in Portugal when Bridgestone refused to supply tyres, Stefan attempted to purchase the defunct USF1 entry, but the moves were blocked. Stefan was fainlly rejected on March 4th when the FIA stated that it was not possible to issue entries so close to the season opener.

And that's it. I'm not sure if we should inclue the part about the German newspapers reporting that Stefanovic was not who he claimed to be and that AMCO was a dummy corporation. There was a bit of a furore a while ago when the article page stated that the proposed QADBAK buyout of BMW-Sauber was run by a known fraudster because thre were no English-language references. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If we are going to maintain a long detailed breakout article on the selection process, then the summary in 2010 Formula One season should be as brief as possible, otherwise it defeats the prupose of having a break out article.
 * I would suggest no longer than one paragraph and something along the lines of - FIA (or whomever created the space) opened the grid up for the 2010 season, creating spaces for an additional three teams, which became four after the withdrawal of Toyota. After a bidding process the winning teams became Campos Meta, Lotus Racing, Manor Motorsport and USF1. I suggest using the team's original names because that's who was granted the grid positions. --Falcadore (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the selection process was a big enough event to warrant a breakaway article. That's why I suggetsed the above paragraph. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's certainly long enough, very well referenced and reasonably well-written. If you want it merged back into 2010 Formula One season you are essentially challenging the article's stand alone notability, yes? Does it meet WP:N? --Falcadore (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep. I always knew the new teams selection process was going to be trimmed down once the season began. But I don't think it's worth its own page. The Singapore Incident, yes. The FIA-FOTA dispute, ditto. But outside of the 2010 season, what is the relevance of the new teams selection process? The answer: nada. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms section?
What does everybody thin about a criticisms section regarding the refuelling ban and new teams? There has been universal criticism of the lack of racing following Bahrain as a consequence of the lack of refuelling with only Prost supporting the change while the new teams have received some criticism and have been more divisiveThelostlibertine (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Would that be WP:Original research? And even if it wasn't I'm not convinced a collection of opinions could be considered encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not intended to be a news magazine. --Falcadore (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's one of the main stories today, so maybe it should be included in 2010 Bahrain Grand Prix. If it becomes a major talking point as the season goes on, then yes it should be in this article. - mspete  93  17:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd just keep an eye on it for now. Having followed the reactions in a few forums, I've noticed that the criticism doesn't seem to be aimed so much at the new regulations as it is at the FIA for introducing them. It's another case of shameless FIA bashing by fans who don't need an excuse to do it. Sometimes it seems that Formula 1 fans are only happy when they have something to complain about. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with Prisonermonkeys on this - some people will complain about anything. We've got a situation where any one of about 8 drivers could win any given GP and people still moan it's not exciting enough. Maybe they want forced overtaking or handicapping but that's not encyclopedic, and has no place here. Anyway, the lack of racing is not down to the refuelling ban. Formula One managed very well before refuelling... Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides, when was the last time Bahrain produced a good race? Let's wait until after Melbourne and Sepang - both much better circuits - and see what the reaction is. 09:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes F1 managed well before refuelling, however the technology has moved on 17 years since then - every time a change is made, engineers can move it around such it is not a problem. It's distinctly possible we're going to have this regarding tyre wear.  But I also agree on waiting for Melbourne and Sepang.  If is still as it is when it hits Europe, compulsory pit stops could be the de facto solution as many commentators have suggested.  With regards the criticism section, it should be filed away under 2010 Bahrain Grand Prix as it is currently specific only to that race - you'll need a few more for it to get onto the main 2010 page. borandi (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's one of the main stories today, just a quick and perhaps unneccessary reminder, that what constitutes a story on a news magazine or website, does not neccessarrily constitute encyclopedic content. --Falcadore (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

BMW Sauber or Sauber
Hello, I'm a user from the German Wikipedia. We are discussing whether the Hinwil-Team should be called BMW Sauber or Sauber. Btw: The name of the Team is not the same in the whole 2010 Formula One season-article. What is your opinion to this topic?--Gamma127 (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This may help. --Falcadore (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The formal name of the team stays BMW Sauber. However, the only reason for keeping 'BMW' in the name is a technicality. For all intents and purposes, it is in reality just Sauber this year. John Anderson   (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The real name of the team (and by real I mean informal) is Sauber, all the commentators and everybody calls them Sauber. But for the time being the official name is BMW Sauber, so that's how it should be listed here.  Dubfire 03:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubfire (talk • contribs)

Pre-Season disputes
FYI, I've just rewritten the formally rather poor section on the dispute under the Pre-season header, hopefully stopping these articles from bloating even more.

Also, on the subject on sections, with Bahrain come and gone isn't it time someone started the season report? I would myself but its not something I am particularly good at. QueenCake (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Senna number
Why is Senna number 2 driver at Hispania? He was the first driver at the team and I think he's the more famous one, so what's the explanation to this? Dubfire 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubfire (talk • contribs)

His personal sponsor, Embratel, requested him to have such number. XGargoyle (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, 21 is the calling code for long-distance phone calls in Brazil. And besides, the number a driver carries is entirely at the team's discretion. Ferrari gave Massa the 7 and Alonso the 8 even though Alonso is a double World Champion and finished higher in the 2009 end-of-season standings. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Massa had a lower number than Raikkonen last year too, even if Raikkonen undoubtly was the first driver of the team. I think it is only because Massa has been with the team longer. The only numbers which are not up to the team's discresion is 1, which is always given to last year's champion (and then his team mate gets 2). John Anderson   (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ferrari did not have a first driver - Massa simply got the lower number because he placed higher in the 2008 standings than Räikkönen. This year he has the lower number because he's been with the team for longer, and still the team has no first driver. X X X antiuser eh? 21:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So you mean they change the reason for giving numbers from year to year? I don't believe that. Massa got the lower number in 2009 of the same reason as he got it for 2010: seniority within the team. Formally, Massa is perhaps not a second driver, but it is quite obvious for everyone that he has always had the role of backup for first Schumacher, then Raikkonen and now Alonso. In any other team except the top teams he would of course be the first driver. But then, I would also rather be the second driver in Ferrari or McLaren than the first driver in Williams or Force India. John Anderson   (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The FIA assign two numbers to each team. It is entirely up to the team which driver gets which number. Assigning a reason to it without supporting evidence is speculation. Speculation is to be avoided. Get a quote from the team as to the reasoning or don't include any reasoning at all. --Falcadore (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Rounds
Why have the Rounds been removed from the table??--WrcF1(Talk) 07:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A look at the history tab will tell you who did it and why, and you can go to their talk page and discuss it with them. Although I nearly took it out myself, feeling that at the end of the season we will have a table widened by a box with 19 numbers (and dashes) in it to very little benefit, IMO. Britmax (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did that and labelled that revision removed completely unneccessary duplication of data that appears in TWO other tables on this page. The Statistics: Drivers table details how many races each driver has done. The Results and standings: Drivers table details how each driver performed race by race. To included it in the Teams and drivers table is unneccessary duplication of data. --Falcadore (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The only time I can see a rounds column possibly being necessary in the drivers' table is when a mid-season replacement happens. And even then, there's still the aforementioned tables. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that a rounds column is not necessary - it's pretty trivial stuff in itself and it can easily be gleaned from the other tables. There's table overkill here already. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a major problem with this article, and many similar to it. If this was presented for assessment as a featured article it would be utterly laughed at. We have over 5000 words (most of it bullet pointed!), 9 tables, 176 references and not one sentence describing the most important event this season, the Bahrain Grand Prix. There is more written about the safety car. There is more written about the stickers on the drivers helmets! Just how foo-ed up is that? Am I the only one seeing this? The article is loaded up with so much minor trivial minuatae (and a lot of it is written two or three times) that perhaps the best thing would be to delete the entire article and start again. Why is there nothing about the actual race that has occurred? --Falcadore (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because if we write about races there, it will repeat the articles about the Grand Prix. IMHO in season's articles we need only season overview (Report section). Cybervoron (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion a rounds column is an nice feature, because you see the races a driver started to at once. But I think the Statistics part is completly redundant, because you get the same information, when you look at the Results and standings tables.
 * There is no information about the Bahrain Grand Prix, because it has its own article. But maybe someone could add an short summary. Because English is not my native language, I apologize for linguistic errors. --Gamma127 (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That the individual GP races have their own articles is mostly (but not completely) beside the point. An article about the 2010 Formula One season absoultely has to have coverage of the races in it. This is an encyclopedia for the general populace, despite the intentions of some, and it absolutely must contain some coverage of the races. The races are the most important part of a Formula One season. --Falcadore (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree to your arguments. I wanted to describe the reason why no one has added this informations in the article yet.--Gamma127 (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with a rounds column, but only when it is needed. Which isn't yet. - mspete  93  16:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You can easily read how many races a driver competed in the results table, and of course you can then see exactly the same data in the rather unnecessary statistics tables. To include it again in the team and driver table is overkill. QueenCake (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right, but for consistency with the other articles, the rounds column is necessary.--Gamma127 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then surely, for consistency's sake, removing the rounds column from the other articles is a better idea? Rather than keeping a redundant column on this page. QueenCake (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or it should be removed from those pages as well. The issue isn't consistency its unneccessary duplication of statistics, and consistency isn't an excuse to bulk up duplication (or triplication) of stats. Instead of lauding 'consistency' how about concise? --Falcadore (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you delete the rounds column in every Formula One article, you are not able to see quickly when Fisichella switched from FI to Ferrari last season.
 * But what about the Statistics part. I think that whole part is unneccessary. --Gamma127 (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The rounds column is useful, when it is needed. It is very important in series like GP2, where drivers change teams for each event. This info cannot be shown in the standings tables. I also agree that the statistics tables could be removed. - mspete  93  23:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Heaven forbid someone should be encouraged to read the text accompanying the tables which might explain Fisichella's shifting loyalties. Just to what extent do you feel that readers hands need to be held? --Falcadore (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The text is always the best alternative, but the rounds column in the 09 article is useful to get the information quickly. For example: In some years I want to know how many races Fisichella has driven for Force India in 09. I look in the rounds column, get the information and be happy about that. Whitout the rounds column I have to look into the article and that costs more time. If I want more informations, I will read the text.
 * But I agree, at this time we do not need the round column for the 10 article, because we have no midseason changes yet.--Gamma127 (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a quick encyclopedia. Why the obsession with getting information quickly? If we were all about speed reading we'd be writing in bullet points in incomplete sentences. --Falcadore (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am not able to describe exactly what I mean. I try again: As an user I expect that I can get “background informations”, especially when I read an article of a season that was ten, twenty, or more years ago. So the article needs informations about the drivers, the teams, the races, the season, ... Informations about the topic. I can read them, and I want to get more Informations as simply “Alonso won the race.” I want to know why he won a race or why he did not win it. These are informations, which you do not get out of a table. But, if I only want to know simple informations, maybe when I am looking for the races a drive started to, etc. For that, the tables are the best source of information. I want to look on my own, and of course I want get the informations quickly. I hope, you understand what I mean.--Gamma127 (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I understood you perfectly well, the point still stands. --Falcadore (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So if a driver does not do a round we will put the rounds back in?--WrcF1(Talk) 17:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While the statistic is duplicated twice elsewhere in the article I would suggest not re-instating for any reason. --Falcadore (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just use a footnote to the table instead. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Formula One 2010 table
Hands up all who think it looks good and can explain to me exactly what it achieves anyway? Britmax (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously it won't look like that! Have you even looked at what the convention has been in previous years? Officially Mr X (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I should have done that and stand corrected but still don't feel that it achieves much. Britmax (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it alright if we remove this table from here seeing as its kind of a pointless waste of space? - mspete  93  16:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed: Done. Britmax (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at previous years' equivalent tables ( back to 2000), they all include the column, with entries such as "All", "1-10" or "1-5 7-14" so the width needn't be excessive. I agree that it doesn't need to be there at all yet, but should perhaps be added as soon as there is data to be differentiated, ie, only as and when a driver is changed, or misses a race (round). Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In the table the "Pole position" collumn should show not driver names, but Robert Kubica's result.

Driver "tooltips" in the Constructors table
In the Constructors table, I'd like to add the driver info to the numbers in the Car No. column via piped link "tooltips" so that one doesn't have to scroll up to the Teams and drivers section to look up which driver a particular number belongs to. This has not been the standard for past seasons, but otoh it won't change the table layout at all, just add a bit of convenient info. --87.79.186.139 (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can foresee problems in the case of mid-season driver-changes, e.g. if Fisichella replaced Massa again, it would be potentially confusing to link the number "7" to just Felipe Massa or Giancarlo Fisichella, and if you linked it to Felipe Massa/Giancarlo Fisichella, you'd get a redlink, which might also cause confusion. DH85868993 (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Regulations References
I've recently noticed some technical regulations or sporting regulations references were linked to autosport.com or other sites, when they could be perfectly linked to the related and official FIA press releases.

I believe they should be changed to the real information source, to avoid potential mistakes. Also, some autosport links become subscripted articles with time, or other were originally subscripted arcticles, whereas official FIA links don't have these issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LehonardEuler (talk • contribs) 14:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Two things: 1) Autosport are usually right. I can't remember the last time they made a mistake and didn't correct it, let alone make a mistake at all. 2) It doesn't matter that Autosport articles become subscription-only after one month: they are still valid references. 121.217.110.89 (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Rules
Does this article need to include proposed regulations for the season? Especially in the mid-season changes section, most of these are just possible suggestions being thrown about by the teams and other parties, not the actual rules for this season. We didn't list proposed drivers for the year, (and quite rightly prevented it), so I fail to see why proposals for rule changes need to be included in an encyclopedia, this isn't a news site after all. QueenCake (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed; if it belongs anywhere, it would be on the F1 page, not on the season page. But proposals by individuals who aren't involved with making the changes, that doesn't make sense to include. It's gossip. --Golbez (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I like the idea as it would very quickly attract everything from old rules that were rejected to all kinds of wish lists with likely none of it sourced, and half of what is sourced will go to an interview with a driver or team owner saying, "we should do this". --Falcadore (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Prisonermonekys here (I'm not logged in; this is a public computer) - when I wrote that section on mid-season changes, I deliberately included the proposals for a reason: because of the reactions of the first race in Bahrain. Criticisms of the race were a major talking point, and the mid-season proposals were a counternance to that. The section under the rule changes on the bidget cap is also important because the budget cap was the catalyst for last season's political crisis. 121.217.110.89 (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It may have been a talking point after the race, but it hardly merits inclusion here, at least not until any of the proposals have been approved. We can't just include every bit of gossip, just because people are talking about it. The budget cap and the following crisis has a whole section dedicated to it at the top of the page, so there's no reason it should be included in a section people look to for actual rule changes. QueenCake (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Qualifying
Could we include the qualifying results? We did for the 2001 season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechnologyGenius (talk • contribs) 04:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Qualifying is detailed extensively at the pages for each individual grand prix. No real need to summarise it for the front page, qualifying does not contribute to the season results. --Falcadore (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Blue Wet races
This is only an idea but I was looking at the Moto GP pages and realized that for wet races they used a blue blackground. 2010_Grand_Prix_motorcycle_racing_season uses it and I thought that it was a good idea for any wet races on the same bases they put it down. Chubb enna  itor  13:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we also going to have yellow for sunny races? Black for night races? Grey for overcast races? Red for races halted by red flags? The middle section in the same colour text as the back drop to incdicate races started, red flagged, and restarted? Races with orange and black highlights for when Icelandic volcanoes cover the track with lava? --Falcadore (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He he, agreed, this is just colouring for colours sake. Background colours are fine only when used for something important, a minor thing such as the weather doesn't merit it. QueenCake (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's only because the MotoGP pages used it and it looks like a good idea. Chubb  enna  itor  18:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't look like a good idea.  The359  ( Talk ) 18:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And if you're going to ask about making a change, you should really wait until people decide before changing several articles. QueenCake (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's not do this. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's actually not as bad as it seems, since wet races are actually a formal thing. The Clerk of the Course (?) states that a race is wet when he deems necessary.Lustigson (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would be much of a good idea. TechnologyGenius 3:38am 6 May 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechnologyGenius (talk • contribs) 02:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Standings sections needs to mention scoring system
The way it's done for the MotoGP is good - at the start of the standings so that any novice knows what they're reading and how the tables were calculated. It shouldn't be assumed that everyone that visits the page knows the ins and outs of F1 scoring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Grand_Prix_motorcycle_racing_season#Scoring_system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.47.217 (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I could add it easily. Any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.47.217 (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Friday Test Driver
The drivers' standings table contains a light blue backgrounded cell field for Friday test drivers. Both Christian Klien and Paul di Resta have tested on Friday sessions. Shouldn't they be included in the table as well? As far as I can check, this feature has never been used in previous F1 seasons, so either we may begin using it, or I don't see the point in including such field on the standings's table if it's not used at all. XGargoyle (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The standings table shows the points earned by any driver who races. As neither Klien or di Resta will race, neither can score points, thus negating the need to incude them in the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It has been sometimes used when the said practice driver has gone on to substitute a race driver for whatever reason. Whether it needs to be used is another matter, but some articles do make use of it. QueenCake (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Then we add it if and when the test driver gets the call-up. Until then, there's no need for it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Drivers" Statistics Table
We've just had the seventh race of the season, and according to this table many of the drivers have started in eight races. Tricky stuff. 121.45.218.254 (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * fixing now--WrcF1(Talk) 16:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Statistics - finishes
Hi in the Statistic bit of the page, in the driver finishes should drivers who did not finish the Grand Prix, but were classified as they completed over 90% of the race distance be counted as finished are not because didnt really? Any ideas--WrcF1(Talk) 18:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be inclusive of all drivers who were classified in races. Otherwise it's a totally meaningless statistic. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok--WrcF1(Talk) 18:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Having said that, it seems that up to now, people have just been counting "finishes", i.e. drivers who were still running at the end. Utterly meaningless. Apparently if a car fails to finish but is still classified a lap ahead of another car which does finish, the former doesn't count whereas the latter does. Even non-classified finishes are counted. This rubbish has no place in the table. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what you've done there makes 100% sense. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Teams' names and wikilinks
This is not my exact field of expertise by I'd like to ask a question about the names of some racing teams and their wikilinks. Contrary to McLaren-Mercedes and Force India-Mercedes, where Mercedes links to Mercedes-Benz (the manufacturer) and not Mercedes GP (the racing team), in Toro Rosso-Ferrari and BMW Sauber-Ferrari, why Ferrari links to Scuderia Ferrari and not to Ferrari? Ferrari is supposed to be the engine supplier, not Scuderia Ferrari which is the racing team of Ferrari. In Red Bull-Renault, shouldn't Renault link to Renault insted of Renault F1 which is the French racing team? Sorry again if I'm wrong. - Sthenel (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mercedes GP do not make the Formula One engines used to power the McLaren and Force India teams, to link to Mercedes GP from McLaren/Force India would not be accurate. In many links you'll see it connects to Mercedes HighPerformanceEngines, formerly Ilmor Engineering who do construct the engines.
 * Ferrari and Renault are different. Both cars and engines are produced by the racing teams, Scuderia Ferrari and Renault F1. The difference is the Ferrari and to a lesser extent Renault teams are more self-contained, closer to the traditional definition of a factory racing team. Mercedes Benz have outsourced to the organisations formerly known as Brawn and Ilmor. --Falcadore (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) It is rather complicated, and often the links are put in by editors who don't necessarily know about the relevant articles that exist. The engines are made by the racing teams rather than the road-car manufacturers, and the racing team articles are more relevant than the manufacturer articles. Mercedes should link to Mercedes-Benz in motorsport, Ferrari to Scuderia Ferrari and Renault to Renault F1. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes Mercedes-Benz HighPerformanceEngines is the correct article to link to. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Results Table Suggestion
Wouldn't using the results legend template (key) at the top of the results sheet free up more space? The results legend alongside the results table is taking up space that could be used for information such as his nationality and team name. It could eliminate the need for other tables and shorten the article. An example:

Drivers
(key) {| Orsoni (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * valign="top"|
 * Why have the flag, and the country of origin? Surely this is duplication? Similarly which team each driver belongs to is written all over the page already, it's is hardly a mystery. Also if a driver changes teams mid-season it will make a mess of the table, and for no good reason as the drivers standings is not dependant on which team the driver races for, a point is a point regardless of the car.
 * While there might be a benefit in shifting the key, adding columns to the table which are not relevant to the table is not a good idea. --Falcadore (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, adding a country column is sheer repetition of information that is much more simply shown with a flag. Also the team is not related to the drivers championship - see Fisichella last season, you can drive for any number of teams to score championship points, how would you show this in a table?
 * On your main point, moving the results key to the top of the section would give a small table surrounded by a large area of white space. This would reduce the readability of the article, (and be an even greater waste of space) and having the keys alongside the results is a actually rather helpful. QueenCake (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Points taken. I was just coming up with ideas to shorten the article, as there have been several discussions on trying to shorten the articles. Rather than repetition, I was suggesting combining some of the tables as a way of reducing the length of the article. I would risk a guess that over half the readers who come to this article, do so to see the results table. I might go as far to suggest splitting this article into two articles, one detailing the results, and another detailing the season overview.Orsoni (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The articles definitely need a bit of shorting and de-tablefying, however you just happened to pick the most important ones on the page! ;) Your right in wanting to combine a few tables, I suggest the Statistics tables and the first table in the results section. When I'm not so busy in real life I was planning to suggest a few changes. Splitting the article in such a way does not sound like a good idea however - by doing so the most important parts, the season overview and the results are separated. QueenCake (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I just thought of an idea. For the sake of clarity, I think that we should highlight a driver's result (the number) in red to show who was the Championship leader at the time of the end of the Grand Prix in question. Therefore people looking upon this page (and articles of previous seasons, too) will know who was the title-leader at a certain point in the season without having the check specific Grands Prix or having to add up points in their heads and probably getting it wrong. It would save a lot of frustration for regular viewers of these articles. For example, Webber being the title leader from Monaco through to Turkey should have his results highlighted in red for those specific races and Hamilton (who took the lead in Canada and kept it up to Germany) should have his results highlighted. I think it's a great idea. FormulaOneFan4Eva (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2010 (AEST)
 * I'm afraid I don't. Who leads the points at each race of the season is essentially a snap shot applicable to each individual race rather than a season as a whole. This information is best carried on the individual race reports rather than the season summary. We don't want to try and make the results table say to much or it will be too hard to read. --Falcadore (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)