Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 15

Flickr warning
I know that several WPF1 members use Flickr to find images for Wikipedia, so I thought I'd post this message. If you come across this tempting set of images from the Spanish GP, then please don't upload them. They are not licensed under the Creative Commons BY-SA-2.0, but are copyrighted by the Crash Media Group. I managed to upload two of the photos before I realised my mistake (I've tagged them for speedy deletion on the Commons), so I don't want anyone to make the same mistake! ;)-- Diniz  (talk)  23:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! THey are now licensed as copyright. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  10:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Both of the offending images have now been deleted.-- Diniz  (talk)  13:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-Championship F1 races
I've recently begun work on an article about the Race of Two Worlds (Monzanapolis), and am wondering what exactly is the criteria for a non-championship F1 race, since I notice the Race of Two Worlds is not listed on the or  seasons under non-championship events, although F1 cars participated. Is it only for events run under the Formula One regulations, or simply events where Formula One cars were allowed to participate? I notice that the 1958 Buenos Aires Grand Prix seems to include cars which, to me at least, aren't likely to meet Formula One regulations, so I'm not sure what the criteria is for inclusion. The359 (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The 1958 Buenos Aires Grand Prix was a Formula Libre race, not a Formula One race, although F1 cars did take part. All the South American races then were Formula Libre, as were most of the Australian / NZ Grands Prix. When I started to bring together stats from the non-Championship F1 races and put results tables in driver articles (I'm taking a break from it at the moment), I decided to leave out Formula Libre races simply because there are so many, and full results are sometimes hard to find. The F1 season articles shouldn't really include Formula Libre races in my opinion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Mosley vs NOTW - Article warranted?
I think we should have an article for this as the section will start to become overloaded in Mosley's article. Opinions? D.M.N. (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the previous decision is that it won't, in the long term, be long enough to warrant its own article and so should stay on Mosley's page. Narson (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it isn't yet long enough to require another article. The359 (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact he survived the vote of confidence means that in a little while, that section in MM's article can be trimmed down a lot. AlexJ (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering the rumblings from the big groups, Alex, I fear that is wishful thinking. Narson (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think it will get trimmed down a lot (partly cos I'm planning to wield the shears, if no-one else is). Even the kind of further developments Narson refers to can be summarised as, for example: "As a result of the decision, a new motorsports federation, the World Federation of Jolly Decent Motoring Chaps (and Chapettes) (WFJDMC(C)) was formed in 2009 by many of the American and European motoring organisations, and ran its own top racing series for voiturettes. Mosley continued as the head of a weakened FIA until 2051, the latter 30 years of which as a disembodied brain in a jar." We won't need all the ins and outs of how that bizarre situation develops. 4u1e (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Catchy, 4u1e - Very catchy. ;-) Anyway, I'd have to agree with the consensus as well, I don't think it warrants an article just yet.--Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 14:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mosley as a Dalek? You detirmined to scare the children 4u? I've added in the latest in the saga onto the page, and added it to the watchlist. (And and chapettes? This is Ecclestone 4u. The guy who said women should wear white like all other domestic appliances straight to live TV) Narson (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

List of rain affected Formula One Grands Prix
Another interesting idea for an article, reminiscent of List of red-flagged Formula One races. I expect some of you will have opinions on it. ;)-- Diniz  (talk)  21:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I'll stick with the opinion that I had for List of red-flagged Formula One races: Trivial. The359 (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hhm. I'm torn over that one. We might be adding one more to the list by the end of today. D.M.N. (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

These lists need to be listed! I wanted a list like that for ages. One question? Is there a list for Most amount of points? Like: Schumacher = 1100+ or Coulthard = 560

I have part of the lst from books but no internet references though. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  08:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a list of the top ten points-scorers in the List of Formula One driver records article.-- Diniz  (talk)  12:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What's a rain affected GP? A small shower, something like Spa '98/Nurburgring '07, or somewhere in between? A red flag is black/white situation. What constitutes rain is a grey area and it could be quite hard to define. AlexJ (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nowadays I would say that race should be listed if optimum strategy is to use wets at some point. Of those races in the list, 1995 French and 2000 Japanese GPs don't qualify for that, I think no one used wets in those races. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, optimum strategy is a subjective thing that involves analysis. I think you'd just go for any race where anyone used wets (thus the rain affected the race by forcing people to change). The problem would be whether such things are mentioned in the books for the older races. Narson (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Qualifying results on table
I know that at the race pages there are the qualifying results but when you look at a table with the results if they had pole that's all you know. Would it be clever and not a waist of time to add the quali results for that driver/team on there race table. Because otherwise if you want them for one person you have to visit 17-19 pages to find out all the results from quali. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  08:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be actual place on grid but can be depending on which quali session. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  08:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was done once before, and deleted because the consensus seemed to be that it took too much space for something which had no direct affect on the championship. The season summaries have enough information, and the qualifying position of every driver was not important enough to list there.  There's nothing wrong with people actually having to search for more obscure bits of information. The359 (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chubb...Qualifying stats are vital when forming a perception of a drivers speed. Reliability issues affect race results more so than qualifying which is about out-right speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.228.133 (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think you could sign your comments? The quali stats are definitely not going in the tables because there's no room. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Improvement drive
Doesn't the current improvement drive need to be changed? It's been Juan Manuel Fangio since I remember. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  10:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * From the top of the improvement drive page: "This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained as a historical archive." It's been inactive since 4th April 2007, well over a year. It worked for some articles (Monaco Grand Prix was probably the best example) and others were improved somewhat, but we generally found we were all interested in different aspects so some articles got little work done on them. At the time of it's conception, there was very little featured/good level F1 articles, now there are quite a few and the list continues to grow even without the collaboration. I think it's served it's purpose and don't see much point in reviving it. AlexJ (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alex, as much as I'd like to see more collaborations between members of the project, I don't really think it's going to happen. Not only that, the list of good/featured content on the subject of motorsport, let alone Formula One, grows thanks to the hard work a a majority of the members interest in Grand Prix racing, like the smart fellow above this comment has pointed out. --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 15:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be inactive because Juan Manuel Fangio is diseased and there is nothing to add or change. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  18:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, Chubb, what the freaky f*@k do you mean by that? 4u1e (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a slight confusion, I think. And even though JMF is dead, that doesn't mean his article can't be improved.  I would be disappointed to learn that an article about a long-defunct F1 team couldn't be improved... ;)--  Diniz  (talk)  21:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I second Diniz's opinion. I for one say that even a small time Welsh driver who's only got onto the podium twice in his Grand Prix career's article could be improved quite easily. ;-) --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 13:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Or maybe, the beginning of the new Millenium, which I'm working on at the moment. :P D.M.N. (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding current season in Template:F1 driver
what do you think if we add this season position and points to this temps. Wael.Mogherbi 6:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest replacing last season's position and points with this season's, since I think these will be of more interest to the casual reader. For both drivers and teams. DH85868993 (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * this is better idea but lets wait for the opinion of other users Wael.Mogherbi 11:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Piers Courage / 1967
Who did Piers Courage (and Chris Irwin) drive for in 1967 - Reg Parnell Racing or the BRM works team? There is conflicting information both within Wikipedia and among external sources: Externally: Any ideas? DH85868993 (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Piers Courage says "Signed by the BRM works Formula 1 team for 1967, alongside Chris Irwin ... Fortunately a good run in the McLaren during the winter Tasman series, including a fine win at the last race, resulted in Tim Parnell offering a drive in his works-supported Reg Parnell Racing BRM team for 1968." and the results table in the article lists Courage's 1967 entrant as "Owen Racing Organisation" (i.e. the BRM works team), but
 * BRM P261 says "Parnell continued to run the P261s for Chris Irwin and Piers Courage during the subsequent 1967 Formula One season." and
 * the results table in Chris Irwin lists his 1967 entrant as "Reg Parnell Racing".
 * FORIX lists Courage's entrant for his three 1967 WDC races as "Reg Parnell Racing", and
 * ChicaneF1 lists Courage and Irwin as drivers for Reg Parnell in 1967, but
 * www.gpracing.net192.com says "Taken into the BRM team prematurely in 1967... [Courage] joined the works-supported Parnell Racing BRM team for 1968..." but the results list on the same page lists his 1967 entrant as "Reg Parnell Racing" (apart from the South African race, where it's listed as "Team Lotus", which I question)

WikiProject newsletter
Hello. I have been contacted regarding a possible newsletter delivery for your WikiProject. Reportedly, the previous bot trying to do it was blocked on grounds of it being unnecessary (which is bollocks, as every project deserves one if really needs it). Thus, please demonstrate/provide the following: Regards, Миша 13 19:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) That there is a consensus for it.
 * 2) There are ideas for it (could someone please draft an example issue?).
 * 3) Suggested delivery frequency.


 * I believe there are back issues, and lists of people interested in receiving the newsletter at WikiProject_Formula_One/Newsletter. Not sure on the exact workings, either User:Diniz or User:Chubbennaitor would be the ones to provide more details. AlexJ (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to ask anything then please contact me or any of the contributors. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  17:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am contacting all possibly interested contributors here. Please answer my questions above and we'll have a deal. Миша 13 07:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you interest, Misza13. In answer to your questions:
 * The newsletter has been produced since February this year, and there are currently sixteen users signed up on the recipients page. There was no prior discussion to it being created, as founder LB22 was being bold, but no objections have been made to it either.  The only time it has been discussed in this WikiProject page is here.  The newsletter provides information such as new project members, articles and pictures being put up for review and  information on Grands Prix that have taken place since the last one was sent out.
 * There have been six issues so far; this is the most recent.
 * The delivery frequency has been approximately once per month since the first issue in February.
 * I hope this gives you the information that you need.-- Diniz  (talk)  15:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to add. If anyone thinks it needs remodeling there is a note in the news section in the previous edition where you will find the link. The recipients list is here and the next NW (newsletter) is always posted with the year then the month e'g' this months was: 200806 which would be on the html as WikiProject Formula One/Newsletter/200806. The NW is made in a secret page to help lower chances of vandalism and a vandal would have to go out of their way to vandalise. I hope that has added extra light on the equation. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  16:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As an additional comment, BetacommandBot (the previous delivery bot) was blocked due to Betacommand's abuse of editing privileges, not because of anything to do with the newsletter.-- Diniz  (talk)  17:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of a 'secret page' Chubb, in any case it's easily found from your contributions list WikiProject Formula One/Newsletter/Next NW. Personally, I'd like the newsletter to lean towards highlighting news about the Wikiproject itself rather than functioning as a general F1 newsletter (as some recent issues appear to be doing). It would be much better for editors to work on race news etc. either at Wikinews or the appropriate race article here (in a more encyclopaedic tone, of course) AlexJ (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know but vandals have to go out of there way to find it so it decreases vandalism. If you give us news on the project it will go in. We don't have any news given t us and we'd be happy to put any news or anything else you want in. We are open for views here. I used LB22's idea for this page and it's the only one due to his retirement. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  19:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

2000 Australian Grand Prix
I'm currently working on this article at the moment. As it's the report for Round #1 of the season, should I go into detail about 2000 driver changes in the Background section. I've gone into a little detail about rookie drivers as I feel that's notable enough for the article, but as for all the other driver line-ups, I'm a little stuck about where to head next, whether or not it's suitble for the article. D.M.N. (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't that be for just the season page- ? ' Chubb ' enna  itor  20:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think some driver moves aren't notable for that article, but most driver debuts are hyped going into the first round, in this case Button had a lot of hype heading into round 1, and thus contributed to the background of the race. D.M.N. (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suppose but it should be brief and not a large part of the page. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  16:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Qualifying stats in driver articles
An anonymous editor has been adding lists of qualifying statistics for certain drivers, such as Jos Verstappen, David Coulthard etc. They're incomplete, unsourced, and in my opinion, not necessary. Any thoughts? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by this? Please point this out. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  18:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. The359 (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well.. Chubbenaitor - go to Jos Verstappen and there, just above the results table, is a list of qualifying stats. That's what I'm referring to. I am also for just removing it, by the way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah no. I brought up doing something similar earlier and it was unanimously decided to not go ahead. You have my backing to remove them. They don't need to be refereced seeing as the WP already has it written down on the actual GP table. (Please don't throw the atitude from above. I find it offensive.) ' Chubb ' enna  itor  19:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good. By the way, what attitude are you talking about? Are you referring to me? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I felt that you were being 'sarcastic' but ignore everything. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  20:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No sarcasm intended. You asked me to point it out, so I did. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty irrelevant stats really, I'm with The359 on this, stop it before it spreads. AlexJ (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nuk'em. DH85868993 (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * He's started to put them back now, with a reference to Chicane F1 - any thoughts? I think qualifying stats are really not something we should be putting in articles, especially in this ridiculous list format. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think they're not necessary, especially, as you say, in that format. Hopefully the message you have left on the editor's talk page will encourage them to participate in this discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree we don't need the table. Not dissimilar to the discussion some of us had at talk:Alain Prost about team mate comparisons. The detailed comparisons like that belong on a stats site like Chicane. If there's anything particularly interesting that comes out of the stats (Coulthard seems always to have been outqualified by his team mates) then it can go in the prose somewhere. 4u1e (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am the author that included the aforementioned stats. I think it gives the reader the opportunity to contextualise the performance of the driver in question. Just as valid as race results IMO and adds an interesting statistical twist which still objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.228.133 (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry mate but I brought up the idea before and someone else tried it before that. It has been agreed not to add the results from quali. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  14:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth not?? Anybody who knows anything about formula racing knowing that quite a lot of significance is placed on qualifying regarding how drivers are perceived within the sport. F1 is about competition and the driver that you are measured against is your teammate. It contextualises the ability of a driver as much if not more than the actual race results!

Put it back!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.228.133 (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably not a great idea to start shouting the odds. It's true that qualifying is very important as regards how one driver is measured against another, but the stats do not take into account different strategies / fuel loads etc, just as one example. I hardly think that qualifying stats are more important than race results - by that token Coulthard would be completely useless, rather than a 230+ race F1 stalwart. Quali just isn't THAT important, and Wikipedia isn't a repository of endless lists of stats. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you've been following F1 for a mere few years, yes, quali is determined by fuel loads and seems irrelevant. The thing is, F1 is a bit older than a few years and therefore needs to be treated in that way. Results of the 1982 season fail to indicate how fast the Renault was in qualifying. It fails to demonstrate how Mansell completey out-paced Piquet for the 1987 championship. It makes for a much more interesting read and will consume a maximum of a 15 line table for each driver depending on the length of their career. Keeping out qualifying statistics merely give an indication of how reliable a given car is, no clue about the standard of driver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.228.133 (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We're all well aware of how old F1 is. I see what you're saying, I just don't agree. It doesn't matter how fast the Renault was in qualifying other than a sourced line in the text. Likewise Mansell/Piquet. It really is far far more important that ultimately Piquet won the title. F1 is all about winning races and points, and not much about beating your team-mate in qualifying. If it was, Trulli would be the best driver in the world. Also, you seem to be suggesting that race results are no indication whatsoever of a driver's ability, and qualifying stats are everything - that's clearly a bizarre point of view.


 * Ans please sign your comments with 4 tildes (' Chubb ' enna  itor  19:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)). Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant the anonymous guy, you always sign your comments ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I know how old F1 is but all an encyclopedia uses results and it doesn't matter about the above. It is abot facts not opinion. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  16:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Your statistics seem to not really be about how well a driver performed in qualifying, but merely how well they performed compared to other drivers. An Encyclopedia is not a place to try and compare one driver's performance to another, especially since you may be leaving out key information as to why one driver outperformed another in qualifying simply by your list being vague. The359 (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Like above. WP is for fact not opinion. From different peoples views you could be seen as wrong. WP has to be nuetral and by doing that it doesn't give an opinion or a strong sided opinion. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  19:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Also it seems to verge on WP:OR and definitely WP:SYNTH. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter idea
I have come up with an idea for the newsletter that brings it more towards the WikiProject. The idea is about WPF1 editor of the month or any time period. I don't know what it could be based on but it ups moral and creates competition to make the encyclopedia better. I don't know what to base it on: comradeship, loyalty to improving one thing, not giving up on something but it has to be for contribution for WPF1 only. Any ideas or comments? ' Chubb ' enna  itor  19:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a newsletter is fundamentally a good idea, but you've got a bit of an uphill struggle, since this wikiproject seems to consist of a bunch of stalwart individuals! We're not actually that good at working together, other than on agreeing project standards. Which isn't to say that this isn't a very fine project, just that we work differently to some others.
 * Having said that, if you're considering editor of the month, how about basing it on the biggest improvement to an article in that time? Trouble with that is, you'd have to agree a way of measuring 'improvement' and get someone (or a small group of someones) to judge it. You may struggle to find project regulars who will volunteer, but no harm in asking.
 * Other things you could put in the newsletter: recently promoted articles; requests for peer review; recently demoted articles; any relevant RfCs, AfDs etc.; articles at FA; any major discussions going on at WP:F1; any agreed changes or additions to the WPF1 standards.
 * I still think there's room for a monthly collaboration on an article too, but you'll need to be a bit more proactive in rounding up contributors, and perhaps a little smarter in identifying a topic. It strikes me that quite a lot of us aren't really into that kind of thing, but there are some who are (like yourself, for example). If you can identify a small group of like-minded individuals, pick a topic that interests you and for which you have good sources (i.e. probably a recent one!), you might get some joy out of it.
 * Good luck! 4u1e (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of those are great ideas that I've thought of but the problem is that I don't know how to find the info. The big arguments of the month I've started work on. The editor of the month was to cover driver of the month after the editor of that has just disappeared off the face of the earth and I'm to busy to edit that. Thanks for acknowledging the up-hill struggle The founder retired one editors been blocked, another not interested and as I said one's disappeared. He went on holiday and hasn't been on since! I you want to edit the NW then please be y guest and only add your name to the contributors list. If anyone anywhere is interested in helping out or becoming part of the community please because I look forward to your stay. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  16:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not organised enough to do much else, but I will try and do is drop you a line when I've got something on review that I want others' comments on. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There's new idea for NW in diniz's sandbox. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  16:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Cars stopping on the warmup lap
I'd like to gauge community consensus over whether the following race results (all of which I believe were cases of cars stopping on the warmup lap) should be recorded as "Ret" or "DNS": Personally I believe each result should be recorded as "Ret" (i.e. as per www.formula1.com and ChicaneF1). Note that I have raised this issue for discussion here, rather than on individual talk pages, since each result affects multiple articles. DH85868993 (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say "Retired" (or "Ret") as the driver did qualify for the race and showed up for the raceday. (Unlike if the driver died between qualifying and the race, which would be a DNS in my book). -- Guroadrunner (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's debatable whether it's Ret or DNS, but all retirements on warm-up lap should be the same. Not like now, when Wikipedia has some of them listed as "Ret" and some of them "DNS". BleuDXXXIV (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's difficult because perfectly reliable sources disagree on their policy. Some say that if a driver lines up on the dummy grid, he is deemed to have started the race, and that the warm-up lap is part of the race itself; others say that he only starts the race if he crosses the start line when the lights go out. Personally I'd go with the latter, but it's a real grey area. That said, I agree that whatever we decide to use, it should be consistent.Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Using mostly Grand Prix Data Book as a source, more complete listing of retirements on warm-up lap below:

About dummy grid retirements, another list:

BleuDXXXIV (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Robert Kubica
There's an anonymous user editing this article - he claims to know Kubica. Some of what he says may be useful but it's clothed in strong POV, woeful spelling and grammar, and he insists on using a kind of bastardised American English - he told me that British English was "dead". He's also pretty rude, so I'm losing patience with him. If anyone else wants to watch the article and deal with his rants, they're very welcome. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On my watchlist. If he does it again, I'll consider a trip to ANI. D.M.N. (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think he's currently concocting another rant aimed at me, but he'll be back ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Silverstone pics
One of my flickr friends has posted 48 Creative Commons photos from testing at Silverstone on June 25. You guys can take care of uploading whatever is appropriate to Commons for use here. They are unlabeled. Enjoy!  Royal broil  19:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification - I'll start uploading them once I've finished this set from the French GP.-- Diniz  (talk)  19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded one image, but now I have to go elsewhere. If anyone else wishes to upload any of these photos, please put them in this category.--  Diniz  (talk)  19:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it I thought they were done. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  06:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I can't. Every code's written as invalid. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  06:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

F1 chassis results tables
I recently had the idea of including a new results table in F1 chassis articles, in addition to the "standard" ones which are already present in many.

Using the Benetton B186 article as an example, it already has this results table:

(key) (Results in bold indicate pole position; results in italics indicate fastest lap.)

My idea is to add a second results table underneath which would display the results of each chassis number. Benetton built seven examples of the B186, all of which raced in 1986. If the results are displayed according to chassis number (using the chassis log book in AUTOCOURSE, then this table is produced:

(key) (Results in italics indicate fastest lap.)

where "SC" stands for "spare car" and "WO" for "written off" (these are not essential and can be removed). Note that I have not included the two pole positions in this latter table as it is impossible for me to know precisely which chassis was used for the qualifying laps in question with the sources I have available. I appreciate that past consensus has been to avoid excess trivia in F1 articles, so I just wanted to gauge the mood on this subject. Whilst having this additional table in a stub article would result in the article being dominated by two tables and an infobox at the expense of actual prose, I believe that this table could offer an interesting extra layer of information in F1 chassis articles at a higher standard.-- Diniz  (talk)  00:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I know it's quite technical and a good addition, but I'm a little concerned about this unique statistics collection that came from a specific source. Since these stats aren't widely known or observable, is this skirting too close to being a copyright violation? -- Guroadrunner (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if a racing history for every chassis is necessarily needed on something like Wikipedia. Who would these things be important to except people who really read too much about every F1 statistic, or those looking to buy an old F1 car? The359 (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna have to agree with The359; for an encyclopedia this is way to much detail. D.M.N. (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. I expected this might happen, but wanted to see what other people thought, just in case there was any reason for the tables. ;)--  Diniz  (talk)  16:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Pat Fry nominated for deletion
FYI, Pat Fry has been nominated for deletion. Feel free to contribute to the discussion here. DH85868993 (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was Keep. AlexJ (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Silverstone loses British GP!
Silverstone loses British GP to Donington Mark83 (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Great, now we get a dull as dish water track. On the plus side, it will be easier to drive around Northampton on the British GP weekend. Really though, we go from an under-developed tack with poorer access to an even more under-developed track with even poorer access. Seems like all the articles have been brought up to speed.Narson (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not try and turn this into a forum discussion topic, please. ;-) Anyway, maybe this should signal a start on improving the Donington Park article? Although, there isn't really a rush, afterall, we have until 2010 to get up up to a decent article. ;-). --Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 12:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It does seem that the BBC chaps are criticising it. We'll have to see what fuss is made, could be an interesting section on the British Grand Prix article. Narson (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is this: which revamp will be completed first, circuit itself or the WP article? I know who my money is on... Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Important images deletion
|Emil Emilgh / Emil Rensing pictures are under fire for not being correctly copyrighted. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  09:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest that we look to replace those images that have been identified as obvious copyvios. AlexJ (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh (expletive). This is more than a few images - these are images that are all over the WPF1 project. (Expletive!!) -- Guroadrunner (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Procar - F1 subject?
The new Procar article was recently featured on DYK, and I've been debating if it falls under the F1 project. The series clearly is not F1 obviously, but it is deeply intertwined with F1 featuring several F1 drivers, teams, and being founded by several key F1 players, as well as leading to BMW's entrance into F1. So, would this fall under the WikiProject's umbrella, or no? The359 (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But you could then argue F2/F3000/GP2 should come under WP:F1 as they support Formula One races, are the main feeder series to F1 and several of the teams have links to F1 teams. My personal opinion is that Procar should come under sportscar racing. AlexJ (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * True, did not think of that. The359 (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions
The following pages were recently moved: What do people think about that? DH85868993 (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions --> List of Formula One World Drivers' champions
 * List of Formula One World Drivers' Runners-up --> List of Formula One World Drivers' runners-up
 * I prefer the original as it looks odd with the r and c being small. MotorSportMCMXC (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's per WP:MOS. Quote from there: The first letter of the first word, letters in acronyms, and the first letter of each word of a proper noun are capitalized; all other letters are in lower case (Funding of UNESCO projects, not Funding of UNESCO Projects). - D.M.N. (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that the title is World Drivers' Champion, all three words form part of the proper noun. The runner-up is not an official title so should indeed be lowercase, but the page ought to be called "...World Drivers' Championship runners-up". If you are going to apply MoS you need to make sure you are applying it correctly.  Pyrop e  14:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, the moves were both wrong. It should (for the second one) be moved to List of Formula One World Drivers' Championship runners-up]]. D.M.N. (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'd suggest moving the champions' page back to List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions and the runners-up page to World Drivers' Championship runners-up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I support this proposal.-- Diniz  (talk)  22:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I support what D.M.N. and Bretonbanquet have stated, as that is essentially grammatically correct.  Lra drama 22:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved both pages to conform with Bretonbanquet's suggestion.-- Diniz  (talk)  19:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

List of F1 Video Games
I got that updated. Just kept it short & sweet. Just crated a bit about PS2, PS3 & XBox F1 video games & how they started & a lil bit about PC F1 car mods for the 2007 & 2008 cars so that should be deleted from the to-do list unless someone wants to add more info. --Danny 93 (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Glitch in WPF1 template
I have recently regraded some F1 articles to the new C-Class standard. However, when I change the talk page template to show this, the articles are put in Category:Unassessed Formula One articles instead of Category:C-Class Formula One articles. Does anyone skilled any the ways of wikimarkup know how to correct this?-- Diniz  (talk)  22:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. DH85868993 (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks.-- Diniz  (talk)  13:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

2012 Formula One Season
Don't you peoples think it might be time to create a 2012 F1 season article? The 2011 one was started around the middle of 2006, so we are long overdue for another one. There are plenty of contracted races etc. to put on the page, so why not? Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. When the 2011 article was created is not a "standard".  I can't think of many races that have contracts going all the way to 2012. The359 (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that we put down the contracted races and do what we are doing with the 2011 article. If some are contracted then an encyclopedia should state them. Chubb enna  itor  19:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not here to list every little thing we know. Should we write a 2019 Formula One season because Donington's contract lasts until that time? The359 (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The conclusion of the last discussion on this a while back was to reduce the number of years ahead we had articles for (I think it was 2 years we agreed on) per WP:CRYSTAL. They were just getting silly with many fake GP's being added as so few were confirmed (I think one years calendar had some 30 potential races on it). The 2012 article was only deleted last December (and it snowballed through the deletion process.) I don't see any point recreating it just 7 months on, with hardly any more details known. Let's try and improve the articles we've already got first. AlexJ (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to agree. 2012 is really a long way off, and any scraps of information that we could put in there really aren't notable enough, in my view. There is a lot of other work to do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wheel companies, sponsors, and bad F1 article names
While wandering around a bit tonight I've noticed some F1 articles that I think have some improper names, and might even need to be rewritten or split into separate articles. Amazingly, almost all of these have to do with wheel manufacturers turned Formula One teams. Some of these articles seem to imply that these companies were solely about F1, rather than being legitimate businesses which existed long before and after their existance in F1.

Now, I know when it comes to sponsors and the like, that this doesn't actually fall under the concern of this Project, but I think those reading F1 articles will be curious about some of these companies, and I think some people here might at the very least be able to find information through the company's entry to F1.


 * ATS (wheels) - Wouldn't one think an article with that name would be about the wheel manufacturer? But all but a few lines of the article concern the team's Formula One efforts.  Wouldn't it make more sense to have an article on the ATS wheel company, and another article on the ATS race team?  We don't have Red Bull Racing's full history filling the Red Bull page.
 * Rial (racing team) - Beyond the fact that this article really needs some text, wouldn't it be helpful to have an article on the supposed wheel manufacturer that the opening line of the article mentions?
 * Fondmetal - One line on the fact that this company is more than just a Formula One team. Another wheel manufacturer who appears mistakenly to just be an F1 team.
 * Eifelland - "Eifelland was a German Formula One team, named after German caravan manufacturer Eifelland based in Germany's Eifel mountains." Shouldn't this be the other way around?  The caravan manufacturer who just happened to participate in F1, with a separate article for said F1 team that this caravan manufacturer happened to run for a year?

Footwork Arrows and Leyton House Racing seem to be good examples of separating the race team from the mother company, although it would be nice to actually know a bit about what Footwork and Leyton House were. The359 (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Rial (racing team) is probably the correct way of naming the racing team articles. Whether a split is necessary or not, I'm not sure - would expanding the wheel manufacturing aspects, and keeping F1 to a section of the main article be a better solution? I haven't really a preference either way, but do agree the F1 aspect is overstated at present. AlexJ (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that none of the four companies are notable enough to warrant an article as wheel manufacturers, caravan builders etc. They're only notable as F1 constructors and the articles should reflect this. Any information on the wheel / caravan etc activities could be collated in a paragraph within the articles. I'd definitely go for renaming the ATS article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Although these wheel companies are not necessarily large, I think enough can be written about them with enough research to to justify a separate article. Every other team which is founded by an existing company (Benetton, Red Bull, Andrea Moda, British American Tobacco, Copersucar, and LEC Refrigeration (although there is no article on the base company)).  We also mostly have articles on Formula One teams separate from automobile manufacturers as well, so I'd think that this would be the trend for the project.


 * If we simply stick with a single article, then articles such as Rial should be renamed quote frankly. The359 (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure any amount of information about Eifelland Caravans would be enough to make the company sufficiently notable for its own article, but I take your point. Despite the trend towards very large companies having separate articles from their F1 teams, I do think some of the tiny, dare I say insignificant, companies would be better suited to sharing an article with the respective F1 team. Of the ones you mentioned, Red Bull, Benetton, BAT and Copersucar are extremely large companies, and would easily merit articles aside from their F1 activities. But the Andrea Moda article is one line long and should be merged with Andrea Moda Formula if it can't be expanded. Just my 2p worth.


 * How would you rename the Rial article? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Andrea Moda at the least could be expanded. ATS as well could be, especially since a motorsports section could involve their involvement in areas outside F1 (DTM, Trucks, F3).  Fondmetal also has business outside of simply making rims.  I'd rename Rial to be just like ATS - Rial (wheels).  It's unlikely that someone coming to Wikipedia wanting to look up Rial is going to put Rial (racing team) into the search engine, they're more likely to end up at the Disambig page for Rial.  The only other major links to the article would come from F1 race reports and drive reports, so I don't think the item in parenthesis will have an adverse effect if we change it to the parent company, rather than the race team. The359 (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 2400 articles are assigned to this project, of which 287, or 12.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added this to the main page of the WikiProject as a hidden template. Awaiting a cleanup list to generate. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Fed up with inaccurate turn numbering on circuit diagrams
The Hungaroring circuit diagram presented on the portal at the moment is yet another diagram on Wikipedia with turns numbered that aren't even considered turns according to The FIA website or the Official Formula 1 website or any of the teams or drivers when they talk about the circuit. In this case 'turns' 2 and 5 on the diagram should just be kinks, bringing the total number of turns down to 14.

I would gladly correct the image in question but every time I've tried to correct images before they get deleted for incorrect licensing or whatever (it is not clear what license the image should be put under when it is a modified version of an image already found on Wikipedia - and whenever I select the option to request an admin etc. to check the image and choose the appropriate license, the lazy buggers just delete it without any recommendation of what license it should be put under so it can stay).

Thanks in advance to anyone who does something about this.

F1 rules, inaccurate circuit diagrams suck! SirJibby (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(copied from Portal talk:Formula One by DH85868993 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC))