Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 14

Standardised name for Nelson Angelo Piquet
I think we should agree a standard name to use when referring to this driver. I recommend using "Nelson Angelo Piquet", since that what his article is called. Alternatives include: When referring to him by surname, I'd recommend using just "Piquet". Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Nelson Piquet Junior",
 * "Nelson Piquet Jr.",
 * "Nelsinho Piquet", or even just
 * "Nelson Piquet" (although I wouldn't recommend this one because if people wikilink that it will go to the wrong article).
 * I had thought about this as well. I believe Renault's press release, as well as the news bit on Formula1.com, refer to him as Nelson Piquet Jr.   However, the Renault profile on Formula1.com just calls him "N. Piquet" The359 (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I normally use Nelson Piquet Jnr (The form used by the BBC oddly). However yes, Nelson Piquet Junior appears to certainly be the common usage in England, though I must admit I've rarely heard his name outside of F1 programs. Narson (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In magazines, television race classifications and books, he is normally referred to as Nelson Piquet Jr.  Lra drama 14:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur with Lradrama - Jr. works for me. Guroadrunner (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So do we have a consensus? Does the article needs to be moved to Nelson Piquet Jr. ? or remain as it is? - oahiyeel talk 11:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Action: Page moved to Nelson Piquet Jr. over redirect. Double redirects fixed, and major templates and pages adjusted.  Pyrop e  03:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WPF1 icon needs updating


Now that the 2007 season has been finished for some time, please could someone with a better graphics programme than MS Paint take one of the freely-licensed images of Kimi Räikkönen and "cut it out" so it can be used as the WPF1 icon instead of the 2006 Fernando Alonso image (right)? Thanks.--Diniz (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Was the original icon chosen solely because he was champion, or because it was a good icon picture? The359 (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I quite like the current one. The ferrari would look kind of...bland. It would also be so annoying if we have to change it every year. We could always avoid the whole thing and just use a similar icon from one of the backmarker teams to avoid controversy and general rabble rabble. Narson (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I recall, we've only ever had two icons. The '06 Renault and before that an '04 Jordan. I personally think the Renault pic looks quite smart, good angle on the shot - a good quality older image is probably better than a bang-up-to-date poorer quality image. It's also quite nice to have different images in different places, so I say we keep the Renault for this purpose a little longer. AlexJ (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind a side shot if at all possible, or a 3/4. The359 (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the current one. There's enough trouble stopping people jumping the gun on updating 'current champion' - imagine if we have to update the icon as well! Anyway, this project isn't just about current F1, perhaps we should have a pic of something even older. :) 4u1e (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't object to something older and perhaps seen as more neutral. The359 (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Could always use one of the mid 90s Benneton or Williams. They were kind of pretty. Narson (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the Williams-Renaults would probably be the definitive 90s F1 car, I guess - the cars to beat for most of the decade and the leaders in most (not all) 90s technology. 4u1e (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (Or we could have a Brabham - BT19, perhaps. ;-))4u1e (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably not the place to raise it, but it would make a good discussion: what is the iconic F1 car? 4u1e (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blue and white Williams. The 94 (with the standard nose cone) or the 95 (With the raised nose cone). If not that then...hrm..you know, as much as I am not a fan, the Benneton that schumacher drove, with the red bit on the nose cone. I'm afraid I'm a young whipper snapper ;) (Oh and first person to mention the Earth Car will be pelted with cans of fruit salad. That car should be forgotten about. Along with the season.) Narson (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This one has a nice angle and 312T is a classic. --Sporti (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That era of car look like corgi toys/go carts/electric buggies for the elderly or young, to me. Narson (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who asked for the Jordan icon to be updated; it didn't sum up F1 in any great way. In contrast the R26 is not only a championship winner, but also a veteran of one of the most exciting seasons in recent times. I would be happy with a slightly older image (or a F2007 image), however I agree to some extent with Narson – it's simply because of my age but an image of a 1976 Ferrari just doesn't sum up F1 for me. In contrast, all users of any age can recognise the R26 as a truly successful car. Mark83 (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Any one of the John Player Special Lotus cars is iconic and most people seem to recognise them. Readro (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be updated to either a Hamilton or Raikkonen icon because that will be reminding of one of the most exciting and close seasons we have had for over 10 years!!! It would be superb.Chubbennaitor (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One potential problem with using Hamilton or Raikkonen is that if you use Hamilton, the Raikkonen fans won't like it, and if you use Raikkonen, the Hamilton fans won't like it. I think one advantage of the current icon was that even though it featured Alonso (i.e. one of the 2007 championship contenders) it was a 2006 car and therefore somewhat more neutral. But I'm not especially fussed. DH85868993 (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if you have it as the Alonso nearly all British fans will hate it even if it was from the previous season. I know someone who has left Wikipedia because of this.Chubbennaitor (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think its a big deal. The R26 looks quite good, I don't think it needs changing. I'd probably prefer a slightly older car but I'm not too bothered - Linczone Talk / Watch  10:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I say keep the current one, but if you must change it, go for one of the red & white McLarens from the late 80s. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to keep the current one until 2008 season finish. No need to do too much updates. Raymond Giggs 05:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Importance rating
I took the liberty of adding support for importance ratings to WikiProject Formula One. I'd like to propose some guidelines for which artciles should get what level of importance, as follows:

I intend this as a starting point for discussion, rather than a finished product... what are people's thoughts/comments/opinions/suggestions? Tom pw (talk) (review) 20:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good --&mdash; Typ932 T  20:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! Nice one! :> D.M.N. (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Should all the Grand Prix articles be of high importance? - Linczone Talk / Watch  20:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't feel that (for example), the Swedish Grand Prix and the British Grand Prix are of the same importance. Tom pw (talk) (review) 21:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The French, British, German, Italian, Belgian and Monaco Grands Prix are probably of higher importance than the rest - Linczone Talk / Watch  21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a list in my userspace that me and Phill came up with a couple of years back of races that could be considered top importance - how you'd create a criteria for this I'm not sure. There'd also probably need to be a few exceptions to the criteria. e.g. Gilles Villeneuve has 6 wins and 0 championships but is probably of high-importance. As for circuits, perhaps a current circuit that's held 20+ races is top importance (similar to Ever-present GP's)? AlexJ (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree that drivers or teams are necessarily more important because they are current (Is Super Aguri as important as Jordan Grand Prix or March Engineering?), but if we start quibbling we'll be here all year. I'd say go with your current approach and just allow (justified) exceptions to the rules for cases like Villeneuve. What do you intend to use the ratings for? 4u1e (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Importance ratings are useful to focus improvement efforts... for example, de-stubbing the most important articles first. Tom pw (talk) (review) 22:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (P.S. re circuits, if any should be top-rated it's probably Monaco, for its history, media profile and role in the Triple Crown of Motorsport. Other candidates that stand out from the rest are Spa (a degree of history and its reputation as one of the best circuits), Monza (history), and the old Nurburgring (for general drama!). I suppose you could base criteria on number of races held or similar, but I'm not sure that wouldn't produce some odd results. 4u1e (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
 * I must stress that I proposed these are guidelines only - if people feel an article shoudl be more/less important than these suggest, then it can be discussed on the article's talk page. There will exceptions to all the guidelines - that's why they aren't rules. I've also added some (vague) suggestions for race reports. Other than that, people seems to be agreeing, so I'll start using AWB to roll these ratings out. Tom pw (talk) (review) 22:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a sensible approach - can I suggest you add 'of exceptional historical importance' to the top category for circuits and then go for it. 4u1e (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. I've copied the table as it stands to WikiProject_Motorsport/Assessment. I've also tagged all the constructors using AWB. Due to the incompleteness of details at List of Formula One constructors, I (generally) tagged all win-less constructors as being "low importance". If they had five or more podiums, this should be corrected. Any volunteers for the other topics? Tom pw (talk) (review) 20:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've now found that using the above criteria for drivers, there are 14 top, 46 high, 55 mid and 680 low importance. Given you'd expect significantly more mid than high, can I suggest we relax the requirements for mid to 1+ win/5+ podiums? This would yield 70 mid and 665 low? (I'm currently working through the drivers, and hope to get them all done tonight). Tom pw (talk) (review) 20:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've done a few of these, but I'm a little confused about some of the criteria... why is Luigi Fagioli rated as high? And Markus Winkelhock? Sakon Yamamoto? Are these two being counted as current drivers? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * *mutters something rude* "Oh bother"... I copied the list of drivers into Excel, and then got it to produce list of top/high/etc. based onthe above criteria. However, where there were footnotes, things messed up slightly... I'll go through and correct them. Thanks for catching that! Tom pw (talk) (review) 21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, caught all those affected... only ten done incorrectly. I'm pausing now (having done ~250, including all top/high/mid), and can't see me doing any more before the weekend. Should anyone else wish to get stuck in, I've put a list of remaining low-importance below (commented out). There's about 550... should take about an hour and a half with AWB (or about twice that the traditional method). Also drivers who racedin 2007 were tagged as high-importance. Any that don't race in 2008 may need to be downgraded. Tom pw (talk) (review) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done a certain number of the stub or unclassified drivers and cars, though my selection was a bit random, I'm afraid. Interestingly, for the most part there's a fairly good correlation between stubbiness and low importance, and many of the more important articles are up at 'B' clas, which is as high as they can go without independent assessment. 4u1e (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, all divers done now. Special thanks to User:Bretonbanquet for tagging ~500(!) articles. Tom pw (talk) (review) 12:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It was.. a pleasure! Haha.. Just with regard to the Roger Williamson article, I would suggest that the nature of his death and its shocking indictment of F1 at the time would merit a 'mid' importance. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Similar for Tom Pryce, not so much an indictment of the system, just the sheer stupidity of his death. 4u1e (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't disagree with that (I don't know enough to comment)... however, could I request that we keep discussions about the importance of individual articles on their talke pages? Otherwise, things here will get horribly cluttered, and it's easier to find the rationale for an exception. Tom pw (talk) (review) 20:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. 4u1e (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I sugges chaning the criteria for circuits to as shown in the table. The difference is that past ciruits now need 10+ races for mid importance, regardless of what GP they were associated with. Also, future GPs' circuits were prevously low, and now they are mid. Does anyone have any objections/comments about this? Tom pw (talk) (review) 14:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Only the usual caveat about allowing exceptions: a particular point here is that in the past there were only half as many championship races in a season as there are now. Consequently, an equal number of races (whether for a driver, circuit, team or car) does not necessarily denote an equal importance. Achieving 100 championship races in the 1950s would have been phenomenal (in fact probably impossible); doing so in the 2000s is not especially unusual or impressive. Perhaps we could add some footnotes with general guidelines about flexibility, such as: "Note: in the earlier days of F1, there were fewer championship races each season, and drivers' careers were generally shorter. All other things being equal, the earlier the era, the fewer races required for notability.". There are other similar general points that could be made.
 * I have just upgraded Giancarlo Baghetti to mid importance level because him being the only person to win their debut world championship race merits such, I feel. Readro (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for doing all of this work, TomPW. Guroadrunner (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism - yes or no?
A huge chunk of unsourced text has just been removed from the 1995 Formula One season article, and replaced with a short (but constructive) paragraph (see here). I'm tempted to revert, but it's not exactly vandalism. D.M.N. (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's an anon who's been following this pattern with early 1990s articles: they delete the existing content, and replace it step by step with longer, but not necessarily better, text of their own. Although that's poor Wiki-quette (sp?) I've not been intervening because on balance we're gaining content and those articles weren't in great shape before. I'd expect the 1995 season summary to grow in length over the next day or two to cover the whole season. 4u1e (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on the user's talk page encouraging them to create and use of sandbox to avoid their edits getting mistaken for vandalism.-- Diniz (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was the anonymous user who started removing text from the 1990 Formula One Season-1994 Formula One Season and then replacing them bit by bit with a description of every race in the season. I was also planning to do it on the 1995 Formula One Season but it got mistaken for vandalism. This is certainly not vandalism and I have removed my warnings which wrongly accuse me of it. I also apologize to anyone who mistook it for vandalism. Gokul009 (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

F1 team identity succession boxes
An IP editor has recently added "F1 team identity" succession boxes to numerous F1 team/constructor articles, e.g. Ligier, Prost Grand Prix, Red Bull Racing, Stewart Grand Prix, etc. What are people's thoughts on these? DH85868993 (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not good. This is no succession in a normal sense, it just happens to be a team which was taken over and renamed. To all intents and purposes, it is really just a formula one licence taken over by someone else, not a new name for an old team. Information like this should be written in normal text, not handled like this. John Anderson   (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement with John here, it's too simplified. You've got cases like Stewart>Jaguar>RB where a lot of staff stayed on and there is (kind of) a link between them and then others like Tyrrell>BAR where they used totally new factories to build the chassis etc. and effectively just acquired a place on the grid through the buy-up. AlexJ (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Or, my personal favourite: Frank Williams Racing Cars which was taken over by Walter Wolf and briefly became Wolf-Williams, before becoming Walter Wolf Racing and taking over most of the assets of Hesketh Racing, but not the name, which carried on for a few years in its own right. Meanwhile Frank set up a new team, Williams Grand Prix Engineering. Wolf later merged with Fittipaldi Automotive. Anyone care to work out the succession for that little lot? 4u1e (talk)
 * They should all be removed. As well as being factually ambiguous in some places, they look horrible. Readro (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gone. DH85868993 (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

McLaren points discrepancy
I've noticed that the points in McLaren and McLaren Grand Prix results are different. Could anyone with the appropriate sources check them out? Also, in McLaren Grand Prix results some results have another one in brackets, what do they mean? A footnote should be placed to indicate what the numbers in brackets mean. Lastly, the totals of either page do not tally with the points shown in List of Formula One records. Any ideas what's going on here? - oahiyeel talk 11:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Something to do with works and non-works entries I'm guessing. Historically, constructor and team were not necessarily the same entity unlike today, so the points that McLaren as a constructor have scored would be higher than McLaren the team have scored. Someone with more knowledge than me on this will likely explain better. AlexJ (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You do yourself a disservice Alex; that was a perfectly adequate explanation! It worries me that this isn't clear in the articles though, that needs attention.  Pyrop e  13:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * From a quick glance, the numbers in brackets look like gross totals in years where some scores had to be dropped? – Ian Dalziel (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. Pyrope has added a footnote to that effect. DH85868993 (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the articles definitely needs to be clearer on this. Would anyone with the sources/understanding help to clear them up? - oahiyeel talk 17:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a go over the weekend if nobody else gets to it first. Note that one problem is that different chassis-engine combinations are counted separately in the WCC, e.g. in 1966 "McLaren-Ford" finished 9th in the WCC (2 points) and "McLaren-Serenissima" finished 11th (1 point). I'll have to think about how to record this neatly but accurately in the tables. DH85868993 (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a difficult issue to resolve. In the absence of any better idea, I used the highest scoring combination. Readro (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Before I invest too much effort trying to make the two tables consistent, my first question is: Now that McLaren Grand Prix results is complete, do we still need McLaren? My thought is probably not - the only information in McLaren which isn't in McLaren Grand Prix results is the team sponsor and the oil supplier. I'm not sure it's worth having that big table just for that. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There was an issue for years, when not all points scored counted toward the championship, no? Trekphiler (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Grand Prix of Canada Host Track succession boxes
An IP editor has added "Grand Prix of Canada Host Track" succession boxes to Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Circuit Mont-Tremblant and Mosport International Raceway. Do we think these are necessary/useful? DH85868993 (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Get rid of them. Not needed and are irrelevent IMO. Same as the F1 Team successsion boxes which have popped up. D.M.N. (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, if there are no objections in the next couple of days, I'll delete them. DH85868993 (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They're gone. DH85868993 (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

WPF1 logo
I know that this has been discussed and dismissed but I would like to ask anyone if they think this picture is acceptable for the logo when cropped.- ' Chubb ' enna  itor  21:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not just cropping, it's erasing the background to make it transparent. Also doing that would create the problem that when a McLaren wins the title this year, we'd need a McLaren next year and then when Williams surprise everyone in '09 we'd have to have a Williams in 2010 and so on. Having a notable car, in a non-current but still attractive livery is the best method of doing things IMO, and that's what we happen to have in place at the moment. There are bigger things to concentrate our efforts at. AlexJ (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As a logo, it's alright, but it's a little too "head-on". As mentioned before, a 3/4 view seems to be better for use of a logo because it is easier to identify and see most of the car. The359 (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer to have a car from a team that no longer exists. If we had a car from one of this years field, it would be possibly biast towards a certain team (for instance Hamilton fans wouldn't like seeing a Ferrari car on the template possibly). I would myself prefer an old car that no one would have a problem with, a few that spring to mind is the Rothmans Williams, a Lotus, or maybe even one of them Simtek's from 1994 (if that's possible!) D.M.N. (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Slightly OT, but I've tried so hard to find a picture of a Simtek that's freely licenced - there simply doesn't appear to be any in existence. If anyone by chance has snapped one, it'd be great if they were willing for it to be added to the Simtek article. AlexJ (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point that last one. I could quite easily get behind a JPS Lotus as WPF1 logo.  Pyrop e  22:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with D.M.N and Keke to go all F1Rejects on this matter and find something obscure that nobody could have any (decent) objections with. Although (and this is not because I'm a Williams fan, I promise!) the Rothmans Williams cars would be good.--Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 22:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with a Rothmans Williams. Very neutral, very recognisible and quite popular. An FW16 would make a great little logo. It might not be easy to find one with a 3/4 view that's free to use however - Linczone Talk / Watch  19:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely has to be a JPS Lotus. By far the most recognisable F1 car to most people. Readro (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That's everyones suggestion. I like the Lotus. I just thought it was a good caption. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should try and have a vote, preferably I would like to have five nominees at least. At the moment, the:
 * JPS Lotus, and
 * Rothmans Williams

Are the more popular choices - Anyone have another suggestion, preferably a non-smoking sponsor ;-) (j/k). --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 22:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What about a Tyrrell 003? Readro (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a Rothmans William would look nice but....the old cars look quite odd when you then think of the new cars. We could always go with a nice BAR ;) Narson (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They are still Formula One cars are they not? Arguably the old cars are more iconic than their newer counterparts. Readro (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In the sense that colussus or a Commodore Amiga 500+ is a computer...I still wouldn't recommend using it for the Wikiproject Computers logo. Might be recentism on my part but then I have only been watching F1 since the very end of the 80s. My father still thinks of the wingless cars of the 60s. Everyone will have their own 'iconic' car. Frankly, the current logo looks nice. It is an F1 car. Why all the cafuffle? Narson (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My favourite liveries from the past 10 years are the later Mild Seven Renaults ('05,'06) as used presently and the early 00's Arrows (the Orange Arrows). AlexJ (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking through Commons, I noticed several Jaguar photos which I think might be nice, since they're a defunct team. The359 (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know this isn't a vote, but I agree with Narson, current looks good & is an iconic car. Too much time being spent with this - I'm not having a go at anyone, I proposed a change a few months ago. Mark83 (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What he said. DH85868993 (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

<--Maybe I'm going back too far, but I've always thought the Lotus 33 is the most beautiful GP car ever. Use that? Or the Tyrrell P34? I'm using that in an infobox, now, & there's no question it's distinctive. (Yeah, also a bit dated...) Trekphiler (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Championship points/position in driver/team infoboxes
What's the reasoning behind displaying last year's Championship points and position in the F1 driver and team infoboxes? Aren't this year's Championship points and position likely to be of more interest to the casual reader? DH85868993 (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. In previous seasons, some users (including me) updated the infoboxes (at least the driver ones) after each Grand Prix to reflect the current positions. I'm surprised that nobody has done it yet in '08...   Majin Izlude  talk  08:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Constructors
The name "constructor" is misleading because a F1 constructor is the combination of car manufacturer and engine manufacturer, e.g. Williams is a car manufacturer and Williams-Toyota is a constructor. This is a general problem at the en wiki and because it's is frequently read, people may think it's correct. The official site is using the word "team" which is better, but it's historically not the same. --Rosp (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm - team is also misleading historically. All of the entrants (another possibility here) have been both teams and constructors (less the temporary cases of STR and Super Aguri) since the early 1980s, this was not the case before then. 4u1e (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's sort this out with the current McLaren team as an example:


 * Team = McLaren
 * Entrant = Vodafone McLaren Mercedes
 * Car manufacturer = McLaren
 * Engine manufacturer = Mercedes (Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines)
 * Constructor = McLaren-Mercedes
 * --Rosp (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not actually true. Williams and Toyota are both "constructors", but Williams-Toyota is a "make". This is the official FIA distinction and is derived from the old European terminology used pre-WWII. The World Championship is awarded to the chassis constructor of the make (combined chassis and engine constructors) that scored the most points. All clear? ;-) "Team" is a flinkin' awful term, best thought of as synonymous with "entrant" as far as I can see, although I try and avoid using it because of its ambiguity.  Pyrop e  00:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I agree that current BMW Sauber, Ferrari, Honda, Renault and Toyota can be called constructors, because they have their own engine manufacturers. Williams has since it's start been a car manufacturer and has used engines from BMW, Ford, Honda and now Toyota--Rosp (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But Williams are said to have won 9 constructors championships not Williams-Cosworth have won two, Williams-Honda two and Williams-Renault five. I understand that every chassisbuilder-engine combination are regarded separately in the championship standings, but I'm sure the championship itself is presented to the chassisbuilder who are then said to be the constructors champions (hence chassisbuilder=constructor). This is almost universal usage of the term in F1 media. AlexJ (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right, it's exactly so among journalists and other writing people, the official Formula 1 site even writes that "teams" are winning constructors championships, e.g. . After having read the header here, I'm giving up. An encyclopedia should be more reliable. --Rosp (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The FIA list the constructors as "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, BMW Sauber F1 Team, Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro, AT&T Williams" and so on. (what I believe is actually the entrant). No mention of Toyota as part of their Williams listing for example. Confusing. AlexJ (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooops, I thougt it couldn't be worse, but actually it could. Thankx for your attention --Rosp (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Best to ignore the "official" F1 site on many occasions, it is frequently unreliable and is written by junior journalists, not anyone special. Regulations, however, are written by the top brass. I'll draw your attention to articles 6.2 and 6.3 of the 2007 F1 Sporting Regulations. It explains things very simply and in a nice concise manner. Interestingly, the 2008 Sporting Regs do away with the term "constructor" entirely, reverting to the older "manufacturer" and "make" terminology. This help things for you?  Pyrop e  16:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, that's the info I was looking for, especially "If the make of the chassis is not the same as that of the engine, the title will be awarded to the former which shall always precede the latter in the name of the car", e.g. McLaren-Mercedes --Rosp (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, under 'make' on the official FIA site (not FOM site) are listed Honda, Red Bull, Williams, Ferrari, Force India, BMW Sauber etc. which would seem to correspond to what we on Wikipedia are currently calling constructor. However the MP4-23's make is "McLaren Mercedes" - the only non manufacturer to include engine name in the make. A nod to Merc's 40% share of the team, but does that suggest that officially the constructor/make is now "McLaren Mercedes" not "McLaren"? AlexJ (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's rather interesting that "McLaren Mercedes" is called a 'make', but let's assume that the combination "McLaren-Mercedes" under the header "Team" here refer to the constructor, then we have a new delicate problem --Rosp (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless we start using "McLaren Mercedes-Mercedes"... But then, if you think about it, we really should also be referring to "BMW Sauber-BMW", as so far as I am aware, the Sauber name only applies to the chassis. But I think if we go down that route we may be creating work that doesn't really exist.  Pyrop e  21:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) You are right, that would be the right naming but certainly wrong of us to correct the Formula 1 world. I'm amending the McLaren list from above after our very useful discussion:
 * Public name = McLaren
 * Team = McLaren Mercedes
 * Entrant = Vodafone McLaren Mercedes
 * Car manufacturer = McLaren Mercedes
 * Make = McLaren Mercedes
 * Engine manufacturer = Mercedes (Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines)
 * Constructor = McLaren-Mercedes

Do you agree? Ferrari and the other packages are much easier ;)Rosp (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Almost agree, but not entirely. I think the car manufacturer must be McLaren. If not, it is not the same as the previosly named McLaren-Honda etc. and thus will have to loose a great part of its history. John Anderson   (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's probably right, "McLaren Mercedes" is confusing, but the problem is that a lot of people are mixing up even easier "teams" --Rosp (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be that confusing. The chassi is a McLaren, the engine is a Mercedes, thus the car is a McLaren-Mercedes. It's the same for all teams, except that when the constructor is also providing the motors the car is not called "Ferrari-Ferrari". The special problem with McLaren is the deep involvement of Mercedes in it, much more than an engine supplier usually has, but I don't think that ought to change the naming conventions. John Anderson   (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not quite yet. Try:
 * Common name = McLaren
 * Entrant = Vodafone McLaren Mercedes
 * Chassis constructor = McLaren Mercedes
 * Chassis make = McLaren
 * Engine constructor = Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines
 * Engine make = Mercedes
 * Car make = McLaren-Mercedes
 * I'm still not sure what "team" actually means, it seems far too nebulous. Note that the FIA seem to use "constructor" and "manufacturer" interchangably. I think my summary just about pins all the correct terminology to the correct names!  Pyrop e  21:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, your definitions make it really difficult and I'm not convinced until you make the adequate changes throughout the English Wiki, so we can bury and forget the "teams" competing for the "constructors" title --Rosp (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I fully agree that the pages are a shambles at the moment, but that's why I think its great that you brought this up. "Constructor" is used where we actually mean "car make"; "team" is used where we actually mean "entrant" or, worse, "car"; and more. The problem we run into is that most F1 journalism just deals with the last season or two, and that language usage in these cases is far easier then for historical articles due to the de facto entrant=constructor=team synonym situation that has been in place since the early 1980s. However, there is still a de jure distinction, and the definitions above (apart from the "Common name" one) are drawn from the FIA's official documentation; they aren't mine. "Chassis", "engine" and "car" also all mean different things, the latter comprising the other two. This runs the risk of spiraling out of control, and splashing down in the semantic soup, but ought to be stated somewhere as a reference. I know that journalists are wont to make blithe statements about "a car's constructor is actually the name of the chassis and engine combined", but this isn't actually true, they are referring to the car's make, not constructor. I agree with John A's point, above, that using McLaren is a bad example, as there is clearly more going on in that case (see below).  Pyrop e  17:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you consider the "common name" to be the same as the marque of the formula car? I think I would. Or is the marque the "car make"? John Anderson   (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * By "common name" all I meant was that that was what people tend to refer to the entire entity as. I deliberately shied away from attaching anything specific to it, so I borrowed terminology from the zoological world! Chassis, engine and car makes are marques. A constructor can choose what name to give thier product, this is how sponsors have managed to buy naming rights to engines produced by others (think of Sauber's "Petronas" engines) or even chassis (e.g. Iso Marlboro). The FIA listing McLaren Mercedes as a make is confusing. Plainly the car is not listed anywhere else under this, but I would draw your attention to that fact that on McLaren Mercedes' (note the construction of that name) own website there is not a hyphen to be seen... So the only two sites that can be considered definitive (the car's manufacturer and the governing body) both use the combined form. Are you feeling the cool breeze of a carefully coordinated phasing out of the McLaren name yet? I am. Should the silver cars win the WCC this year I'll be interested to see what name goes on the trophy.  Pyrop e  17:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Formula One 2008 66 page preview booklet free inside your copy of The Guardian" guide also follows the trend here. The team preview section uses "Force India", "Williams" etc. names until page 38 with the hyphenless heading "McLaren Mercedes". Perhaps not a phasing out of the McLaren name (McLaren has a heritage that is useful for Mercedes' high-end roadcars), but it brings it inline with AMG Mercedes I guess. AlexJ (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good spot Alex. Repositioning McLaren as a division of Merc? Anyway, still a bad example of the terminology problem.  Pyrop e  17:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As I stated above, I think it is wrong to treat McLaren differently from other teams. It should be McLaren-Mercedes. Mercedes is just the engine supplyer in this matter, even if Daimler AG owns 40% of the team. If not, then McLaren Mercedes is not the same as McLaren-Honda etc. was, thus erasing a good part of the team's history – just like Honda is not the same team as BAR was, Renault is not the same team as Benetton was and BMW Sauber is not the same team as Sauber was, even if BMW has chosen to retain the old name as part of the new name. John Anderson   (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * John, hi again! I saw that you speak Swedish, and then I will ask you how you would translate the word "make" into Swedish? --Rosp (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be biltillverkare or bilmärke, but the later is more closely translated as marque. John Anderson   (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you John, but I think "car manufacturer" is biltillverkare and my word book is translating "make" to fabrikat, but that word has so far never been used to describe what it is, but tillverkare would be adequate --Rosp (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Tyres
Just wondering what the point in having B for Bridgestone next to all the drivers was considering that all drivers must use these tyres? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.109.220 (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I think that after 2009 + articles we shouldn't put the tyre type on the chart and put it as a note unless there are two types of tyre manufacturers for that season. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  20:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting this on the WPF1 talk page ' Chubb ' enna  itor  20:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd have to say remove it from 08. Keep it for 07 because it would be a pain to remove it, and the previous season was a single make, but no need for them in 08. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I Disagree. There have been many seasons in the past when only one tyre make has been used and the icon is still included in the table. It doesn't need to be removed now just because of a rule change. What tyre make a team is using is still an important piece of information regardless of whether all the other teams are using the same - Linczone Talk / <sup style="color:olive;">Watch  20:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We had a discussion on this a while back and IIRC the consensus was keep, with the thinking that in 10+ years, we may have a tyre war again and people may look back and wonder what tyres were used in 2008. If you wanted to check at a glance what tyres were used in '96, you'd be disappointed if you found the column had been removed because GoodYear were the sole supplier. Same with things like leaving V8 off all the engine descriptions in the table, they're all V8's and were previously all V10's but by keeping the info in the table, you can see at a glance when things changed. AlexJ (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep. Keep 'em, per AlexJ. DH85868993 (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd add a fn on "spec tire" or "rule requirement", FYI to readers coming to it ignorant. Trekphiler (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ferrari Grand Prix results
I notice that an IP editor has removed some of the tags from the table, so there are some results in standard sized letters and others in the usual reduced size. I can't see the reasoning for this, the normal/small split seems rather random. Anyone got any ideas? AlexJ (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see the reasoning; we can do without it though. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  12:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fancy sharing the reasoning you've noticed? I still haven't spotted a pattern. AlexJ (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well. Every time there is a pole or fastest lap the words are in italics or are bold. Well the IP must have thought that they need to be bigger because they are important. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  16:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, so it is, I was looking at the positions as opposed to the PP/FL. AlexJ (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One point to note is that the bolding doesn't show up if the tags are in place. I'm wondering whether we need to consider removing all the tags for team/constructor and F1 car results tables (i.e. so that all the results are the same size). Note that I'm not proposing this change for driver results tables, mindful of:
 * the amount of effort that would involve, and
 * the fact that in driver tables, it's the race abbreviation which gets the bolding or italics, and those are already in normal size font. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on all counts DH. Leave the drivers as-is, and adjust the car/team tables to all large.  Pyrop e  00:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problems seeing the bolding show up even if tags are in place. The 2008 Formula One season uses that in the table and seems to have no problems. IMO, having some normal size fonts and some small size fonts in the table makes it look unnecessarily untidy. I would prefer them to be reverted back to all small. - oahiyeel talk 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What browser/OS are you using? For me, bold text inside tags appears unbolded using both IE 6.0 and Firefox 1.0 on Windows XP. Also note that the tables in 2008 Formula One season don't use tags; they uses "font-size: nn%", which is different. DH85868993 (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Firefox 1.0?!? :) 4u1e (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * omg. you should upgrade to FF2 and IE7 - oahiyeel talk 16:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't actually use FF 1.0; I just happened to have it installed on my machine, so I thought I'd check what the text looked like in that, to make sure it wasn't an IE(6.0)-ism. DH85868993 (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are forgiven in that case ;-) It must have been hanging around quite a long time though! 4u1e (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Couldn't this be a matter of settings for your monitor? John Anderson   (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If there are no objections, I'll change all the team/constructor and car results tables to standard size font (but leave the driver tables unchanged) some time in the next few days. DH85868993 (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd deem it as unnecessary work, but if you want to do it, go ahead. John Anderson   (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Max Mosley
I suggest you guys put his page on your watchlist, per the front of the tabloid News of the World newspaper, and this on their website. D.M.N. (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh why did I move to Canada... you miss all the Screws best investigative journalism! It's wrong, peverted and insane..... imagine calling Max a friend of Lewis Hamilton! Thanks for the link... I haven't laughed so hard in ages.  Pyrop e  14:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just threw up a little in my mouth. God I really hope this turns out to be fake, I'm not sure my mind could take it. *gets back to reading Black Shirts* Narson (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for Pete's sake! That's a great way to torpedo a FAC nomination, although it was looking a little iffy on the grounds of quality of writing anyway. I will admit that 'Nazi orgy' is probably the perfect headline, though. You don't really need a story to go with it.... 4u1e (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Partly Lesbian S&M Nazi Sex Orgy is even better. Oh well, either way, his term runs out next year. It shouldn't make its way into the article though, I have yet to find anything other than NotW publishing the story...Narson (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Google's news aggregator shows 131 outlets running the story. This includes most of the big broadsheets in the UK (Times, Telegraph, Guardian). AlexJ (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And (speculating) if his term were to end early as a result, it would be notable. 4u1e (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. No-one else was picking it up yesterday...I guess they were waiting 24 hours for him to declare he was going to sue and when he didn't they went for it. Narson (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a shock to me, but he has now confirmed the allegations as being nearly all true. He maintains there was no Nazi connection, however. Readro (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's April 1 though, so I don't know what the hell to believe... The359 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't do an April fool about that. Not with the air of potential legal action hanging around. Readro (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, as of 5pm UK time, according to this it is the most edited article on Wikipedia within the past hour. Wow. D.M.N. (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Another Featured Picture nomination


Following the success of the photo of Nick Heidfeld and Nico Rosberg mentioned above, a similar photo of Lewis Hamilton has also been nominated as a Featured Picture. Please comment .-- Diniz (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Another F1 image has now been nominated (Image:Kimi Raikkonen 2008 Australia.jpg). Please comment here.-- Diniz (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Free image requests - revisited
User:David Gerard has recently added the "No free image" image to about 200 F1 driver articles (as well as hundreds of other articles) - see Peter Arundell for an example. What do we want to do? Leave them? Revert them? At least this time he's put the images inside the infobox - last time he placed them outside. I wonder why he didn't just put the image into Former F1 driver (as he did with F1 driver)? DH85868993 (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, they're in the right place this time. I can't imagine someone's going to come forward with a picture for the majority of them, or if they do, it'll be a copyrighted one uploaded in good faith. My personal opinion is that it achieves nothing and is kinda a self-ref which should be avoided. I don't feel strongly enough to start arguing over it however. AlexJ (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignore my previous comment about not caring, all the BTCC drivers pages with the template are broken. I do feel strongly about it now! AlexJ (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Leave a note on his talkpage informing him that he's broken a lot of BTCC driver pages? D.M.N. (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Already done. The dangers of using AWB I guess. AlexJ (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll put it straightforward – I've talked with this guy before about this and he is adamant of putting these "no image" boxes on in search of having images for everybody. He does not care if it breaks templates. I personally do not like the no image thing at all, so I create public domain, but really unartistic, MS Paint images of helmets and put them in just make these gray boxes go away (people don't like that either but this guy will just tag it again as having no image). You can look at my conversation with this guy here:  Guroadrunner (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a Quickie
Just thought i'd let you guys know that User 60.48.179.33 has started to add standings after grands prix sections in the 2000 and 2001 articles. I am starting to revert them now. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We need to come to a consensus on what to do with these soon, in order standardise all articles. At the moment, people are seeing them on some articles and (in good faith) adding them to others. AlexJ (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Get rid of them. I think we've revisited this about four/five times and all the time the consensus is the same. D.M.N. (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's a losing battle. No matter how many times we remove them, the IP just adds them back in. And their IP address keeps changing, so it's hard/impossible to discuss the matter with them. And what's worse is they don't just add the points tables information back into the articles, they revert to the last version of the article which contains the information, thereby undoing all the other changes made in the meantime. DH85868993 (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If we don't keep reverting them, they're going to spread further. Might it be worth requesting semi (IP) protection on them? AlexJ (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection is only used if there is quite a bit of IP vandalism. Since this is only happening once every few days, and since it isn't exactly "vandalism", it wouldn't get semi-protected. D.M.N. (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Any chance of getting a block on a particular set of IP addresses? That might not be possible anyway, and really we'd have to show that we'd made every effort to enter into dialogue (since this is far from being vandalism, more of a content dispute). So I guess we just keep reverting. 4u1e (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Formula One constructors
Formula One constructors has recently been updated to divide the list of former constructors into the decades in which they competed, like this:

I personally don't think it's necessary, and that the former, single, alphabetical list is sufficient, i.e.

What do others think? DH85868993 (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd change it back. The alphabetical layout is a lot less crowded - Linczone <sup style="color:olive;">Talk <sup style="color:olive;">/ <sup style="color:olive;">Watch  21:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I edited the template as described above. I'd say it's the alphabetical layout that's more crowded: a string of links running to 7 to 9 lines on my screen here, without differentiation. I'm hoping people might accept the spirit of my contribution, even if not its exact execution, as:
 * it communicates more information via this layout, from which teams went defunct recently to which only appeared in the 1950s. I find that more interesting and useful than the previous "lump" of former team links;
 * in the first instance, this layout doesn't make the template large (i.e. the default state is for the "Former" section to be collapsed);
 * so this initial collapsed state also serves to focus attention on the current/future team situation, rather than the eye being distracted by the "lump" of former team links in the previous version.
 * Perhaps those folk who monitor this template (and this page and...) are F1 aficiandos (sp?) who might have a good idea about which former teams lasted until when, etc, etc. I'm not – I'm like a general encyclopedia browser here – but am interested by F1 and find those places in Wikipedia where information is communicated by layout as well as content attractive and stimulating.
 * Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Really cant say which is better, but the old one doesnt take anything from current constructos as we have Template:Formula One teams which is used current teams --&mdash;  Typ932 T  22:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see why you wanted to make the change, but it doesn't really work, does it? Taking Brabham as an example, the team was founded in the 1960s, and was a major force in F1 in the 60s, 70s and early 80s, but only appears under the 1990s. The team only raced for 3 years of the 90s (depending on how you count your decades) and was not a frontrunner then. The information conveyed by the revised template is therefore at the very least somewhat distorted. Similar for Team Lotus. 4u1e (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood, although the layout is only meant to indicate when teams became former teams, nothing more. what if each former team had its lifetime appended (in a bracket)..? Brabham, if I've understood correctly, would then become "Brabham (1962–1992) ", etc. Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, but it will be read casually as 'These are the teams from the 1950s' etc. Sorting by when teams ended isn't especially notable either. Can we split by levels of success (champions, race winners etc), or by alphabetical order, or by country of origin? (All those suggestions have their own problems, by the way!) 4u1e (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see the problem now; there's too many variations on what people might make of the layout, so I've reverted it to the single list of links but kept the show/hide option. Hope everyone happy. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, I notice the note regarding F2 cars running in F1. Should there be a note about Indy 500 entries as well? I know that notation is made in various other places. The359 (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * At the moment the Indy constructors aren't listed in the template. However, in the Finnish version they are, so perhaps that's something we might want to consider adding. DH85868993 (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually figured they wouldn't be listed, but a notation added explaining why they weren't listed. The359 (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not have an additional section in the template for them? Current constructors, future constructors, past constructors and Indy 500 constructors. Readro (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That would expand it rather a lot though, wouldn't it? Weren't there large numbers of them at that time? Plus we can chew on the old chesnut again: they're not F1 constructors, they're World Championship constructors. And would be get people adding non WDC Indy 500 constructors? 4u1e (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess, equally, you could say that the F2 constructors aren't F1 constructors, but they are included. It's a tough one, isn't it? Readro (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but the F2/F2 boundary is a bit more blurred that the F1/Indy one. Getting back to the original point, I really think the template needs to go back to the old form. I'm not averse to a change to split all the former constructors up somehow, but the current version is historically very misleading. 4u1e (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Change the list back as dividing by decade introduces inaccuracies - Minardi, for example, raced in the 80s, 90s and 2000s but is only listed in the last category. Guroadrunner (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Going by date the team folded as opposed to date they formed does seem a rather unorthodox way of doing things. A 'sort by decade joined' for former teams may work but the sort by decade retired definitely doesn't. AlexJ (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Much rather the updated. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  07:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I prefer the one with all former teams together, for the same reason as Guroadrunner. If not, it would acctually be more logical to have a template showing all teams in each decade, and that would really be too much. John Anderson   (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I also prefer the one with all defunct teams together - while it provides less information, it is more clear, neat and concise. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

1995 Japanese Grand Prix - GA Passed
A few days ago, the 1995 Japanese GP article passed it's GA review. Now, I personally think that it's worth heading to FAC, but given my history of taking F1 related articles to FAC in the past (2007 Malaysian Grand Prix for instance), I thought I'd ask here first whether that would be a good idea. If you guys think it needs to be improved more before nominating, could any of you guys possibly leave comments on the talkpage if the article does indeed need a lot more improvement before FAC. Also, on a completely seperate subject, is Simtek S951 good enough to be rated as Start-Class yet? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you'd get away with using Jonny Herbert's B195 to illustrate MS's car at FA for example. I mentioned everything I noticed during the peer review but of course there's probably a lot that hasn't been picked up on. Having said that, you've had a few people review it so I can't see where else you can find out what needs improving apart from FAC.


 * As for S951, I'd say it just about scrapes into start class and can lose the stub designation. AlexJ (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point about the Benetton. I, initally never noticed that until a few weeks ago. I don't think a image of Schumacher in the B195 exists, I've seen one with Schumacher in the B194, but I guess that's no use. I could go to League of Copy-Editors with the article, but I could be waiting six/seven months for someone to copy-edit it, and I don't really want to wait that long. If no one objects, I'll nominate it for FA in a few days. As for S951, I've put that to Start-Class. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually in the image caption don't say "This is Michae's Benetton B195", I just say "The Benetton B195, which Michael...." Anway I've been doing some searches on Flickr, and have come across a pretty good photo of the Benetton B195 with Schumacher in it. Now, the licensing is unfortunately against Wiki's image guidlines. I don't have a Flickr account, but I recall one of you guys saying you do. Could one of you who have an account leave a comment on the image asking for the licensing to be changed, as at the moment it's at "All Rights Reserved". Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a photo of his Benetton from the '96 Autosport show. It's a static display and obviously has no driver in it, but it clearly has the No. 1 on the nose. If this would be alright then I can scan it in later, but I'm not sure it's quite what you want. Readro (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good with the No. 1 on it. Scan it, please. Thanks. :) D.M.N. (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, it's here. The quality isn't excellent, but in fairness I was only 11 at the time and it was before digital cameras! Readro (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty nice image there. I've added it to the 1995 Japan article, along with the Benetton B195 article. The captions may need changing though. D.M.N. (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Side note - Re: Image:Simtek_Preseason1995.jpg - I strongly recommend putting up a fair use rationale connected to the Simtek S951 article, as it probably would pass. Otherwise some robot would tag the image for deletion for lack of FUR. Bug me on my talk page if you want me to write up a FUR. Guroadrunner (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the image probably would fail fair use for H. Noda, but some editors act like jerks about Fair Use Rationales (ask me how), so I'll pull the image off of Noda's page to safeguard it from one of these jerk editors. Guroadrunner (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I've decided to nominate it for FA-status. The discussion is located here. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You may want to look at the discussion even if you're not interested in voting one way or the other, since a reviewer has asked a very reasonable question about the validity of various web pages as references (Note: she's asking a question, not telling us we can't use them!). It's probably something we should have a view on as a project. 4u1e (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking recently about setting a page up with 'approved/recommended' sources (that is sources we could guarantee would almost certainly meet WP:RS) with guidance on various quirks etc. (like a data accuracy warning on Formula1.com!) - if justification of sources is now required at FA (and that's a good thing IMO) then it may prove helpful. AlexJ (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's an excellent idea. Do we want to attach it to the existing WP:MOTOR library? 4u1e (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah makes sense to keep it with the other bits, but have a direct link to it from the WP:F1 main page. I'll draft one up in a sandbox. AlexJ (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh* D.M.N. (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess it was closed as it didn't get a single support within 2 weeks. Bit abrupt maybe because issues raised were being actively addressed. One positive to take is that the article is improved as a result of going through the process. It's also proved useful from the point that we now know that every source needs to be justified (even if only used for simple matters) so that's something that we all need to bear in mind when working on articles. AlexJ (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mosley
I know Wikipedia is not really the place for such things, however I felt the following would be of interest to some:

A blog is not authoritative, but I read today in one that the reason the NOTW went after Mosley and printed the stories is a direct result of Mosley taking legal action against the Sunday Times which printed Martin Brundle's "Witch-hunt threatens to spoil world title race" (The News of the World and The Sunday Times are both owned by Rupert Murdoch's News International) 5 months ago Brundle and I thought the Mosley/FIA combination was a dangerous animal to provoke; looks like the Murdoch/News International beast is far more vicious! Mark83 (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * An interesting theory at least. I wonder if the lawyers will argue public interest because Mosley was directing lawyers to sue 'popular' television pundits. Narson (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is quite a lot of speculation that the News Corp. connection is the reason behind the expose - Mosley himself has said there's been a 2 month investigation by a private investigator into all aspects of his personal life. Mosley is hardly a well known person outside of F1 circles so he wouldn't normally be expected as a target for NOTW making revenge the most likely reason. I said at the time on various web forums that News Corp. was a silly target (they also own Speed who broadcast F1 in the USA, Star Sports who broadcast F1 in various parts of Asia and several Fox Sports outlets in South America). Hopefully one of the papers will make the link (possibly they may wait until Mosley is gone so as to keep their Press Passes) and we can include it in the article. AlexJ (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Porsche 3512 > Porsche 3512 engine
Just wanted to check if anyone was against me moving this back. AFAIK, there is no other Porsche 3512 apart from the engine so the disambiguation is unnecessary. I've tried to contact the editor that made the move, but have yet to receive a response. AlexJ (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely the information would be better put in the related Footwork articles? D.M.N. (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's my opinion too, but discussion has stalled on that one at stalemate. There's a section on the talkpage if people want to express their opinion. However in the meantime, I'm moving the page back. AlexJ (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Grand Prix race report infobox
I think we should have a "Attendance" figure in the infobox. It may not be available for really old races, but I'm pretty sure it would be available for recent races. Opinions? D.M.N. (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added | Attendance = as an optional parameter to the template. See if that does what you want, and adds anything useful to the articles. If we decide to keep it, it can be added to the pro-forma documentation. AlexJ (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

2007 German Grand Prix
Just noticed this has been speedy deleted as 'nonsense - there is no German Grand Prix in 2007. Redirecting is also a stupid idea'. IIRC the GP in Germany was originally going to be the German GP but was renamed to the Euro GP after a dispute over naming rights. Therefore (I think) the situation was that '07 Germany was redirected to '07 Europe and the name confusion explained there. I therefore think that a speedy delete was inappropriate - the article was definitely not 'nonsense' (defined on WP as " text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. This includes sequences such as "rtmhtyhjjflbhjognarlgelsnaahat///8kjt9ykbitiof,kkc", in which keys of the keyboard have been pressed with no regard for what is typed OR Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.) I think there's definitely a case to keep the redirect in place. Worth appealing it with the relevant admin? AlexJ (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully agree Alex. I was surprised myself when I saw that that had happened, but I wasn't familiar with the page's content so I could draw a conclusion. I'm not going to get into my usual rant about the admin nomination process and the quality of some admins (in brief: not keen) but that is certainly not a db case. A warning on KyleRGiggs's userpage and recreate the redirect would be fully justified.  Pyrop e  17:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree entirely with both of you. Would WP:DR be a suitable place to head with this? D.M.N. (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think its probably best just to contact the user who slapped the db banner on the article first. Sort things out on a personal level, and not get too heavy about it. Mind you RfC might be a god place to take the admin who actually deleted the page... Numpty.  Pyrop e  18:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For me, the problem lies with the deleting admin, not the person who slapped it with the Db notice. At the end of the day, it's the admin that needs to make sure that the Db notice is valid or if another is required as it's their change that is not (easily) reversible. In this case the admin has decided/confirmed it is a G1, when clearly that is not the case under the guidelines. However, in response to a message left on their talkpage, I am told 'Db-Nonsense' is a blanket tag. IMO it is not for an admin to take action based on what they decide is nonsense to them. Say for example an admin considered professional wrestling (WWF etc.) a nonsense. Would it be OK then for them to speedy all these under the nonsense clause? We work on consensus not with some elected leaders making decisions for us. (Can anyone guess this has slightly annoyed me? ;) ) AlexJ (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fully with you Alex, and I agree that the admin behaved badly. Sadly, although the admin nomination process requires demonstrable knowledge of the MoS and use of the admin buttons, possessing a brain is apparently not compulsory.  Pyrop e  23:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

2009 Formula One season
Am I right in saying the "Speculated 2009 race schedule" section is a gross-violation of WP:CRYSTAL as it is clearly crystal-balling as no such calendar has been announced yet. IMO we shouldn't really have a speculated calendar until the FIA officially announces a proper calendar and I think it should be removed. Opinions? D.M.N. (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Entirely. However, rather than delete it I think it needs transforming into "Races confirmed for 2009" and "Races mooted for 2009", and with proper citation of every entry under either subheading, and presented as a list, rather than a schedule table. Some races have contracts and so will definitely be on the calendar, and some possible races have received substantial media coverage.  Pyrop e  18:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Pyrope. DH85868993 (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For now, I have changed the schedule to the style of the 2010 one - Linczone <sup style="color:olive;">Talk <sup style="color:olive;">/ <sup style="color:olive;">Watch  18:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I suggest we try to find some references for the "Rumoured" Grands Prix. And likewise for the ones in the and  articles - there might be some suitable references in Future of Formula One. DH85868993 (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

First race without tobacco advertising
An IP editor has been annotating the first instance of each F1 race run without tobacco advertising. Do we think this is valuable/necessary information? DH85868993 (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We could always add the first race to feature tobacco ads. The last to feature alcohol ads, the last to feature imprints from Australian owned media empires, the first to feature promotion for a cinematic motion picture, the most recent appearance by a sponsorless car, then we can bunch them all together in a category once its completed!
 * Obsessive agenda-based minuatae is a bit of overkill methinks. --Falcadore (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't look out of place as part of GA/FA quality race report IMO (in the main body of the article obviously). Tobacco advertising has played a big part in F1, so I believe it's demise around the world is relevant. AlexJ (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. Tobacco was the major backer of F1 for over thirty years. Its removal from the sport is quite a major event. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * These comments are, however, forgetting the first 17 years of the sport which was without sponsorship entirely. Personally I don't believe these notes are necessary. Tobacco sponsorship finishing is a major event, but it does not need to be noted in every race article since. A section in the main Formula One article would suffice. Readro (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding tobacco sponsorship's "demise" "removal" and "finishing" – are we forgetting about a team which receives billions of dollars from Altria (formerly Philip Morris), paint their cars in "Marlboro Red", carry subliminal Marlboro logos at most races and actual Marlboro logos at others? Mark83 (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By "first race without tobacco ads." we of course mean the point at which subliminal ads were required instead of the actual brand. As you say there are a handful of exceptions which means this is still an active process. Also there's the weird stuff like at Silverstone where debranded cars would come down the Hangar straight with a great big Marlboro sign in the background. BTW - Ferrari since about 2 years back now paint their cars in the lighter shade of red instead of Marlboro red. AlexJ (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If I remeber correctly, wasn't the 1999 Belgian Grand Prix the first Belgian Grand Prix without tobacco ads because of a local govt ban on tobacco ads, even though it did return for 2000. I remeber seeing The McLaren's running the "David" and "Mika" liveries, Ferrari some F1 theme, Jordan "Buzzing Hornets" and Willams just "WilliamsF1". Kingjamie (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur with Falcadore that this might be agenda pushing. I would support one of these two options: 1) remove these notices, or 2) give context that the races were run with tobacco liveries __in name__ because of national rules in tobacco sponsorship. I say "in name" noting Mark's point that Ferrari still has subliminal ads, meaning there are no races yet without tobacco sponsorship. Guroadrunner (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the information is interesting, especially since the ban of tobacco advertising has been rather controversial in some places. However, the information should not be in the articles of the races nor in the main Formula One article. A better place for a list would be Tobacco advertising. John Anderson   (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am going to be bold and remove these notices when I see them, as that appears to be consensus (?). Guroadrunner (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I still don't think they should be simply erased. Gather them in a list in one article instead, like the one I suggested. John Anderson   (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Or work them into prose, as I believe it is a notable change for the first time a country changes it's laws to ban named tobacco sponsorships. AlexJ (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A few questions (again...)
In the past, I've known you lot to provide some answers to the great puzzles of Formula One - or perhaps just a misunderstanding on my part ;-). Anyway, there are a few things puzzling me this time:
 * It's been ages since I last read The Lost Generation so I thought I'd go over Roger Williamson's career and in the (understandably large) section on his death at the '73 Dutch GP Tremayne writes a very interesting paragraph:
 * On page 106, it talks about the marshals and how unprepared they were for an incident such as Williamson's but read on a bit, "...Mosley (A Mosley quote was just before this part) himself was not entirely blameless, however, according to Pete Briggs. 'Afterwards I was packing things up and there was a small television set; the accident suddenly came on that and I was there watching it, and Jacqui (Williamson's partner) was standing right beside me.


 * I had to tell Dodge (Roger's father) and Tom [Wheatcroft] what had happened. There I was in the middle of all this, and Max comes up and says, "Got to go. I'll leave it all to you..."'"


 * Just incase anyone isn't familiar with Williamson I've taken the liberty of adding some notes to make it clearer. Anyway, may I ask what Briggs meant by this - was he blaming Mosley for the incident? Though to be honest, one can't recognize the car in the footage unless the March had some sort of feature, so how could Mosley have known it was a March? One can certainly understand why he'd wish to leave considering the laws back then in Holland and Italy about motor racing accidents.


 * Is it made clear what Max was "not entirely blameless" for? I've had a look in the relevant section of Alan Henry's March - The Grand Prix and Indy Cars, and the impression I get from that is that being left (by Max) to clear up Williamson's personal effects was partly to blame for Briggs' decision to quit the sport (for 3 years). DH85868993 (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In the paragraph before the quoted one, it has a quote from Mosley blaming the track officials and organizers for the death of Williamson, I'm guessing Tremayne is referring to who is responsible for Williamson's death.--Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 13:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but it doesn't sound very likely - Williamson crashed due to a thrown tread on one of the front tyres (which could be due to poor suspension setup, I suppose), but also hit a loose barrier and could even then have been saved if the marshals had helped David Purley in his efforts to get Williamson out of his upturned car (all according to Mike Lawrence's The Story of March). There's nothing there that could be laid at Mosley's door. I can however see him being blamed (quite rightly if the report is accurate) for leaving Briggs in the middle of a very unpleasant situation, which given his position at March he should have dealt with himself. I guess what Tremayne was getting at was that Mosley did not behave in an exemplary manner himself in the aftermath, not that he was responsible for the accident. 4u1e (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In this year's Autocourse, it talks about Industrial Espionage in Grand Prix racing and I was wondering if it would be possible to create a "Industrial Espionage in Formula One" article, or something along those lines as well as additional articles on the cases the parent article mentions, such as last year's incident.


 * You mean Mark Hughs' 900 word sketch "article"? There is plenty of scope for doing so, from the outright copies (Arrows, Rebaque, BRP) to the more subtle cases. However, finding enough sources will be the hard part I suspect.  Pyrop e  15:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If we have the 2007 Formula One espionage controversy article, then I suppose others like it can be created. However, past incidents have been less serious in consequence and can probably be kept to individual chassis articles if necessary (e.g. Arrows FA1).-- Diniz (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes. A bit less infamous than last year's incident but non-the-less important. Perhaps we could expand the scope to Motorracing in general? --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 21:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, if you guys don't mind clarifying these for me it'll be much appreciated. Cheers.--Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 12:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mosley's legal action against Sunday Times
Does anyone know how the legal action against Martin Brundle's column ended? I searched LexisNexis and there was NO mention of a resolution. The stories I found went straight from saying there is a legal action underway to saying there was a legal action - with no further explanation. Mark83 (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Darren Heath copyvio
On our list of articles to copyedit is Darren Heath, the photographer whose imagery of McLaren's footwells in 1997 was revolutionary. I noticed that a big part of this article is actually a copy/paste from http://www.datumbranding.com/projects/darrenheath.html?id=1. I figured instead of putting a copyvio tag on it, our WikiProject perhaps could get this fixed, assuming notability? What do you say? Guroadrunner (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As it was such a blatent cut and paste, I've deleted the offending material. Better to err on the side of caution with copyright issues, I think. The material is still available on the website if anyone wants to use it as a source for a re-written article. (Which reminds me, I must chase up the Times online website to ask why they're reproducing material from Wikipedia without acknowledging the source...)
 * Regarding notability, the only two sources used on the page seem to be promotional sites for Darren. Are there any independent sources for notability? (Of him, not of the photo of the McLaren footwell). 4u1e (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added that he was the Chief Photographer for Autocourse in 2003 and 2004.-- Diniz  (talk)  14:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like this was fixed in a jiffy. Good deal! P.S. - I like your new signature appearance, Diniz. Guroadrunner (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ;)-- Diniz  (talk)  19:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

André Testut
Was André Testut Monegasque or French? Following a recent edit, he's identified as Monegasque in his infobox, but is included in and. Some Wikipedia articles (e.g. 1958 Monaco Grand Prix, List of Formula One drivers who never qualified for a race) have a French flag next to his name, whilst others (e.g. 1959 Monaco Grand Prix, 1959 24 Hours of Le Mans) have a Monegasque flag. External sources are split too: FORIX and oldracingcars.com identify him as French, whereas gpracing.net192.com says he's "Monacan". Obviously, we need to decide on one nationality and apply it consistently throughout all the articles. DH85868993 (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could he haved moved between 1958 and 1959? The359 (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Was the passport the defining factor back then? 4u1e (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would think it was, but if he had double citizenships it should have been the nationality of the licence under which he drove or choose to drive. John Anderson   (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, tricky. The 'official' F1 site has him as Monegasque, but as we know the older results there aren't necessarily trustworthy. I'd be inclined to go with FORIX and Old Racing Cars as the more reliable sites, but since he was born in France, where did the story about competing as a Monegasque come from? Anyone got any contemporary reports? 4u1e (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that the only two WDC races Testut contested were the 1958 and 1959 Monaco Grands Prix suggest that he lived in Monaco, but it certainly isn't evidence of his nationality (Consider that David Coulthard lives in Monaco). The only sources I know of that list Testut as Monegasque are www.formula1.com and gpracing.net192.com (the broken link in the top-left hand corner should be a Monaco flag). DH85868993 (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, tricky. Consider also that when he did compete it was as part of Chiron's Monaco "national" team.  Pyrop e  16:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Schumacher as TD for Ferrari
I have boldly added that M. Schumacher is a special test driver for the Scuderia Ferrari and put that in the infobox, considering his recent action at Barcelona and other press on the subject of him being an occasional test driver. Your thoughts if this is a kosher move? Guroadrunner (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See, I'm somewhat dubious over this, as he seems to have a position greater than any test driver. While he has done test driver work, one term I saw applied was 'special consultant'. He gets to pick and choose what races he goes to, gets paid a large wodge of cash and only occasionally tests the car, so I suspect he is doing more behind the scenes....that or it is a retainer to ensure he doesn't go help their rivals. Narson (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well one of his roles within Ferrari is plainly that of test driver. Whether he does other things for them or not doesn't affect that.  Pyrop e  20:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Suppose that is true. Narson (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But as we have had before, junior drivers have participated in test sessions for their team, but are not really considered test drivers. I believe the recently discussed criteria is whether that person's job (IE what they are paid for) is a test driver. The359 (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Schumi is a special one(The Special One? LOL), to not be confused, a special case instead. However, I don't think it is a good idea to say he is a "special test driver". For example, David Beckham is a soccer star, but he is still a footballer, isn't he? And we still call him a footballer, right? Also, special test driver is still a test driver too. Regardless how special test driver works, he is still a test driver. Raymond Giggs 05:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

1995 Japan - Back up for PR
After advice from others, I've put 1995 Japanese Grand Prix up for Peer Review. Please comment as thoroughly as you can on the discussion so the article can be improved further. The PR is located here. Also, I've been having a discussion with several other users at WT:FAC mainly about the 1995 Japan FAC, but also about whether WikiProject's should support their articles in FAC's see here. The consensus is that members from WikiProjects involved can support articles if they have helped improved them e.g. making major edits themselves or my commenting on the article in PR's. Just something to bear in mind that you can support if you have helped improve WP:F1 articles that happen to be in future FAC's. D.M.N. (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems rather daft, with just 5 or 6 WP:F1 editors it's likely we could get almost any GA standard article through the FA process. AlexJ (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't count on it :-) Supporters are expected to declare their participation (editors usually make statements like "Significant contributor", "I did some copyediting", "I'm a member of the the WikiProject", etc.), and that Support is weighed relative to all other Supports and Opposes. For example, if three Project members Support, and one independent reviewer says, "this article is full of jargon and I have no idea what it's saying", that one independent voice will have a substantial place in the outcome.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, FAC is not a vote. One reasoned negative comment outweighs myriad, moronic "support per nom" contributions.  Pyrop e  19:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's assuming an independent review happens. If an article was only to have support from within the Wikiproject, with no objections from elsewhere, would it be promoted? AlexJ (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes is my assumption. Just so you guys know, Sandy is the FA assistant who promotes/not promoted articles alongside Raul654 so that's who never promoted the Japan article. Re Pyrope: "Support per nom" I guess isn't satisfactuary, if you said, "Support, I gave a review of this article in it's PR stage and all concerns were addressed" etc, that would be a valid support. You would also have to state that you are a WP:F1 member. D.M.N. (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well technically it was the consensus that didn't promote the article, Raul & Sandy just try to interpret the consensus, and on the whole do a pretty good job. I hate to say it, but it's starting to come across as sour grapes again - I'm not sure of the exact %age but I'd be sure more articles nominated fail the FA process than pass. Don't take it personally that Japan '95 (despite all the hard work I know you've done on it) is in that majority. AlexJ (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO, the Japan '95 has a lot more quality than the 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix article which ran through FA several times mid-last year and in the end looked like me assaulting a dead horse. Sandy's given me a bit of advise on how to get people to review the PR and then when it comes to FAC, there shouldn't be much problems. After all, some articles have been through FAC three or four times, and still have become FA's, take for instance Buckingham Palace. I probably wouldn't go four times with 1995 Japan, but maybe two/three if it did get failed again. D.M.N. (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the current record holder is Ronald Reagan with 6 FACs. The key is to not be discouraged and to continue to work on all the comments as they are given. Woody (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, someone might shoot me for this. My reasoning before I hear a load of "why's" and "remove it now" etc, I think I better explain myself: Opinions? D.M.N. (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It provides useful info.
 * 2) Much more neater than the IP edits which wasn't really in a proper format.
 * 3) It's actually referenced!
 * I take it no one minds about me doing something against previous consensus, then. D.M.N. (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't. I can't speak for anyone else though. DH85868993 (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never been too fussed either way.  Pyrop e  20:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's amazing how a wikitable and a reference can change people's opinions! ;)-- Diniz  (talk)  20:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't recall ever having commented on the matter before! :-o  Pyrop e  21:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...from apathetic to interested, then? :P-- Diniz  (talk)  21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Would prefer some sort of dynamic table that graphs the entire season - like a charting specialty that can be standardly used across all races of the season that logs how the points standings went. Wish I had the skills to do it. Guroadrunner (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Anyway, if anyone sees the "boring IP edits...." again, give me a heads up and I'll convert it to table format (with references!) :D D.M.N. (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOTOR/SOURCES
As a result of the 1995 Japan FAC (see above), I've gone ahead and created the WP:MOTOR/SOURCES page. Please expand/add if you can. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Race results table; do we need a key/legend?
A point came up at the 1995 Japan PR which I think should be brought here before I go ahead and adjust the article if necessary. brought up a point where it may be better to have some sort of key/legend to distingush between the different things in the qualifying and race results column, e.g. "Ret" = Retired, "DNQ" = Did Not Qualify, "DNS" = Did Not Start. What do you guys think about having a legend beside the qualifying and results table? D.M.N. (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought we had one - see Brabham BT19. Although I suppose that's probably more than you need. You can probably edit it down to fit your needs, though. 4u1e (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

F1Fanatic has a blog up.... about Wikipedia and WP:F1
Guys, take a peek at this. It's a pretty good read. I haven't looked at the comments left, though. D.M.N. (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Article is mostly positive, as are quite a few of the comments. Barring the "anyone can edit, therefore it's not reliable" argument, one of the comments left - "unfortunately, F1 seems the be one area they had a lack of interest in." makes me wonder if the person looked at any F1 articles. Both within Wikipedia generally and especially within Motorsport, F1 is one of the best maintained topics IMO. AlexJ (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh leave a comment if u are really fussed up! I agree with AlexJ. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  17:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The best thing I found out from that blog post is http://www.dabbledb.com . I'll have to play with it sometime. Guroadrunner (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Mosley (again)
With the saga taking a twist with Ecclestone hatchetting Mosley, are we getting to the stage where this saga should become its own article? Narson (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No.  Pyrop e  19:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with Pyrope on this. We should at least wait until everything is settled to see the outcome before deciding how big the event is in the grand scale of things. I'd say two or three paragraphs in the MM article will end up being sufficient. In 10 years time, people won't be interested in the exact date that Bernie said this or Jackie Stewart said that and their exact quote, just a general view of what happened. AlexJ (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right-o. Was just concerned with that section on the MM page getting a little bloated in comparison with other sections. Narson (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right - it is. Long term, I don't imagine this whole episode (however it turns out) will rate more than 3-4 paras in the final article. We won't need the blow by blow account. However, at the minute, I'm inclined to let the article grow (provided all is ref'd and neutral!). We'll trim it back later when we know how the story ends. Personally I'm starting to worry think he might actually get away with this! 4u1e (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've applied for Semi-protection status for the article to stop all the anon vandalism thats stirred up again. Narson (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Carlo Abate
Is it Carlo Mario Abate (1390 ghits) or Carlo Maria Abate (726 ghits). Currently our article in entitled "Mario" but all occurrences within the article say "Maria". DH85868993 (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An explanation appears to be provided in the article, so I would go with Mario (more common and his preferred usage), with a note explaining that he was born Maria.-- Diniz  (talk)  14:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that Wikipedia seems to be the only place he's referred to as Carlo Anything Abate. On 1960s entry lists and most websites, he's Carlo Abate, and the article ought really to be renamed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On edit. I may have exaggerated slightly but "Carlo Abate" has 1470 ghits, more than either of the variants. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Monaco Grand Prix winners
I'm slightly curious as to why this category exists as there is already a list on the Monaco Grand Prix article with all the drivers who have won being listed, not only that but if one wishes to make an alphabetical list, then all that needs to be done is just make the wikitable "sortable" and use the Sortname template, eg like I have done in the Drivers' Championship table in this season's F1 article. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 14:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Are there categories like this for other grand prix events? If not, it appears to be an anomoly, and if the same data can be accessed on the article, then I don't think it is needed. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 16:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with the category being unnecessary with a list already in existence. Also noticed a problem with the sorting, because the names are "Firstname Surname" it sorts them by their first name where ideally we'd want them to sort by Surname. This must be a common requirement so there should be a way of doing this somehow. AlexJ (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't take long to find the solution. Felipe Massa needs to be used in the tables instead of Felipe Massa . It'll display and wikilink normally but sort alphabetically by surname. See Bahrain Grand Prix for example. AlexJ (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense Alex (probably I've just missed the plot) but didn't I suggest using the Sortname template? Oh, well - doesn't matter, just wondering. ;-) --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 20:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, you did say that. Where did I put my glasses... AlexJ (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably on the floor, Velma. ;-) --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 21:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't want and extra 20 categories on MS's page do we?  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 02:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Schumacher? Who he? ;-) 4u1e (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If we delete the category then the sorting issue will be irrelevant. --Falcadore (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's how I'd approach this: Is this a part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport, and if so does that make it special above other GPs? If so, are there Indy 500 winners and Daytona 500 winner categories? (That's the triple crown, right? Daytona or Le Mans?) I'm not worried one way or the other if the category stays or goes, but I wanted to ask: does it how special importance? Guroadrunner (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Le Mans 24 hours, not the Daytona 500. There is confusion in sources over what the F1 leg of the triple crown is - some give the Monaco GP, some give the F1 world championship. As Graham Hill is the only triple crown winner, and he won both versions, there's no real way of telling. My own personal view is that it should be the Monaco GP, because the other two legs are races, not championships. 4u1e (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

F1 Chronicles
Someone added F1 chronicles as a source on the Super Aguri page and well, having a look at it, it looks more like a blog of some description. Is it considered reliable? Narson (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Have reverted. Looking at the content of the site, it is definitely not reliable. Readro (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, on this note, does anyone know any good sources for Super Aguri or Yuji Ide ? – Guroadrunner (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

ChicaneF1.com Dead?
As of 08:00am UK time I cannot get onto ChicaneF1.com website. This (for me anyway) couldn't of come at a worse time. Anyone else experiencing the same issue? :$ D.M.N. (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Internet Archive is your friend. The359 (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's working fine for me.-- Diniz  (talk)  09:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it just went down for a while - I know Google had a similar problem a couple of days ago. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 13:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Back on. Thanks guys, D.M.N. (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Guys, please comment on ChicaneF1 and whether it (along with Gale Force F1) is reliable, at this discussion. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sponsor
OK, we come here to build encyclopedia, is that the track sponsorship is really necessary to covering in each report? Since WP is not a place for promotion. --Aleen f 1 14:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of what you mean - what articles is this in? D.M.N. (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See every 2008 Formula One season race report, track sponsor appear in notes section, is that really necessary to mention? --Aleen f 1 14:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Techincally there shouldn't be a "Notes" section whatsoever per WP:TRIVIA, but anyway, the "Track Sponsors" part should be removed. D.M.N. (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, i assume consensus reach here. --Aleen f 1 15:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we agreed on this a while back. The only sponsor that should get a name check is as part of the official name (which should already be in the infobox). Anything else is irrelevant. AlexJ (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sortable results tables
User:Plonker Bonker has edited all the 1982 F1 race report articles (and a few of the 1981 ones) to make the results table sortable - see 1982 South African Grand Prix as an example. Is this something we want? DH85868993 (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind seeing that. D.M.N. (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work. When you re-sort by classification after sorting the other fields, everything goes out of order. --Pc13 (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I suggest limiting the amount of tables we make sortable. Tables such as the Drivers' Championship table in each GP season article and the GP article's list of winners (ie, Bahrain Grand Prix) should be only be done. It seems very unusual, IMO, to sort a race classification alphabetically - not only that but interestingly enough the numbers don't really seem to order themselves properly, as Pc13 says. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 10:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Daft. It's a results table, not a table of unconnected statistics.  Pyrop e  11:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comfortably the most ridiculous thing I've seen in a long time. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The table is already sorted by finishing position, and it doesn't have much sense to order it by race number, or in alphabetical order of drivers and teams (ordering it by grid position so you can see what the original grid was could have a little sense... but still it's a bit silly). So I say: let's take this out. Asendoh (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is quite useful say for allowing people to group the results of one Constructor all together. It is a good thing! Remember, the way it is the default setting is as before. Plonker Bonker (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What would that show though? By sorting it that way you lose the relational aspects of the table. Did Williams finish before McLaren? I don't know, I'll have to resort the table to find out, or compare the numbers in the finishing positions column. I really don't see that this table style adds enough to each article to outweigh the clutter to the table headers and the overall increase in table width.  Pyrop e  16:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sortable tables potentially have their uses in Championship tables and lists of winners of an event, but I'm not convinced it's of much use for a results table in race report. AlexJ (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It might make a bit of sense on an article with just the results, but if an article has the qualification results and such, then I agree that using it on the results table makes no sense. The359 (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I immediately had to play with it. It's rather neat. My only issue is that when sorting by grid position, the DNQ entrants come above the people who started 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so on. I recommend this:


 * Wikisort: Name, number, grid positon, team name (maybe).
 * No wikisort on: Finishing position (10th, 11th, etc. come before 2nd place because it sees 1xx, 2xx, 3xx.), time/retired, laps.
 * I also concur with The359 on qualifying tables making some wikisort elements redundant. – Guroadrunner (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with not having a Wikisort of the finishing position (which is how it's appears before any other sorting) is that there's no way to get back to this initial situation after sorting without refreshing the page. That's not a good design. AlexJ (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well with the way the sorting works, is there any way to get back to the original situation at all. without refreshing?  Pyrop e  17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * True. But while playing with it, I found that I could break it easily and finishing position did not work in sorting people back. It's almost like we need a "default" button to ensure everything goes back to its original state, but that's coding that might be outside of the inherit wiki system Wikipedia uses. – Guroadrunner (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I seem to have found a way to get it to sort properly numerically 1,2,3...,9,10,11 etc but the DNQ/DNS/Ret stuff still confuses it. AlexJ (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:F1 race
A persistent IP editor keeps editing F1 race to list the entire podium instead of just the winner. What's our preference? Note that while the discussion is in progress, instead of reverting the IP editor's changes again, I've updated the template so that the fields for the second and third place finishers are hidden if they are not populated. DH85868993 (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that it is most certainly too much information. If you want detail of the last race then go to the last race screen. In fact I would strip out all the "last race" section, except perhaps the race winner. The infobox ought to be about the race history, so it seems odd that we don't list historical information such as when the first race was or how many there have been, but we do give the fastest lap from the last race.  Pyrop e  17:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's too much information. Readro (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Pyrope makes a good point. Should last years fastest lap be replaced by the lap record? (I know they're usually the same thing, but occasionally there's a difference because of rain or something and it seems a more historically appropriate fact to list). I also agree on adding the first race criteria. AlexJ (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with giving a fastest lap for an event is that most Grands Prix have been held at different circuits throughout their history, and even when the same circuit is used changes to the track layout make direct comparisons meaningless. The only way to get round this problem would be to use a complex comparative alogarithm, such as the Pomeroy Index, but this would probably constitute original research.  Pyrop e  18:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Lap record also has its own "complications" - refer to this discussion at WP:MOTOR. I'd support removing all the "last race" information, and just leaving the wikilink to the race report. I think all we need is (not necessarily in this order):
 * First held (wikilink to race report)
 * Latest race (wikilink to race report)
 * Number of times held
 * Most wins (constructors)
 * Most wins (drivers)
 * I wouldn't object to the retention of the Number of laps, Lap length and Race distance, since they might be of some interest, but also noting that they really only apply to the latest race. Also note that most F1 race articles have a table of winners, so I don't see the need to put the latest winner in the infobox. I'm undecided about whether or not the track map is necessary/desirable. DH85868993 (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds about right. I think we need to have some image in the infobox, and the track map of the current circuit is preferable to the only alternative I can think of which is the flag of the hosting country (there's enough flags already in the F1 articles). AlexJ (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the First held and Last held fields as optionals. Also changed Track information to Race information. Did we come to a conclusion about whether to remove last year's winners, FL, PP etc.? AlexJ (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would actually support keeping all of the last race information in the infobox, as I think it is useful to the casual F1 fan who is liable to use Wikipedia as a reference for this sort of thing. I would also support keeping the track map/image, although it may be a good idea to indicate in some way that only the current track for the GP is being shown.--  Diniz  (talk)  13:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One way of indicating the map image can be seen on British Grand Prix - all tracks are listed but the current track (which is what the image should be of) is bolded. AlexJ (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good way of doing it.-- Diniz  (talk)  14:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:F1 GP
Um. I have just created this and Template:F1 gp. I'm wondering if anyone thinks this is a wrong idea. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  14:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? It saves one whole character! (and that's if spaces are included, it actually takes more if you discount spaces) I can't see the point myself. And making two identical templates with different spellings is definitely a bad idea. If one was changed, the other won't automatically. One should be redirected to the other (if the decision is to keep them). AlexJ (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was wondering about the point of that template myself. It doesn't save any significant number of keystrokes and isn't terribly intuitive or easy to use. It also doesn't have the ability to create alternative pipes.  Pyrop e  15:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I say send it to TFD. D.M.N. (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they're not needed. Note that if consensus is that the templates aren't required, I believe Chubbennaitor should be able to request their deletion using db-author rather than going through the (comparatively lengthy) TfD process. DH85868993 (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually it takes away having to type out Grand Prix which I find terribly annoying to do. I only made two because you couldn't type out {{ f1 gp you had to use capital letters I forgot about the link thing. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  06:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mind if I ask what we do if we wish to link GPs that occured before 2000? Because if I wish to link the 1998 Belgian Grand Prix, then I get {{f1 gp|98|Belgian}}. Wouldn't it be better if we had the {{{1}}} field as the full year? ie, 1998 rather than 98? --Phill {{sup|talk Edits}} {{sub|Review this GA review!}} 11:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then it would take a further 2 characters making it a character longer than typing the whole thing out! Is typing out Grand Prix really more annoying than {{|||}} ? AlexJ (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I only just saw Phills problem. the {{|||}} is shorter than the whole thing and I've made a few changes. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  12:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your two templates are now inconsistent. Can you see the problem of having the both of them now? AlexJ (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know. I'm trying to make them useful. How do I make them linked without it showing up when the template is used? ' Chubb ' enna  itor  15:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Off the top of my head, #REDIRECT Template:F1 gp might work. However, you're solving a problem that doesn't really exist IMO. AlexJ (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  19:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Did we come to a conclusion on whether to put this up for TfD or not? AlexJ (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't because it is now useful. You can use it if you want to see for yourself. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  10:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any urgent reason for deleting - it is only used in one mainspace article (2009 Formula One season), and it's intuitive enough for people who come across it for the first time to know how it works.-- Diniz  (talk)  13:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

People use it in {{f1|2009}}! I thought I was the only one who used it seeing as I created it. I use it in the next Newsletter which is coming out after the {{f1 gp|2008|Canadian}}. Why should it even be deleted seeing as it could be useful for all the lists. It makes it quite useful when you don't want the '2008' part but the link is lead to the '2008' GP. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  18:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Need Fernando Alonso, Scuderia Ferrari and 2010 Formula One season on watchlists
GrandPrix.com is reporting that Alonso has signed for Ferrari for a deal that starts in 2010. Note: No official word from Renault, or Ferrari, it is a rumour. Do we include this in respective articles or not? D.M.N. (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd say wait for official confirmation, however GrandPrix.com is considered reliable so I'd say it could be included, obviously as something like "GrandPrix.com has reported that Alonso has signed a contract to drive for Ferrari from 2010". Perhaps the best thing to do would be to wait for a second reliable source to run the story. AlexJ (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say not. GrandPrix.com reports it only as being a rumour that is doing the rounds in the paddock. Readro (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is for 2010. U know how many times the rumours will change untill then? --Sporti (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)