Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 28

BMW Sauber links
Following a discussion some weeks ago, BMW Sauber has been merged into Sauber, and BMW in Formula One has been started, with the aim of describing all of BMW's activites in F1 (please note this is not yet a finished article). I thought that the idea was that all BMW Sauber links (i.e. links for the team from 2006-09) would be linked to Sauber, seeing as that is the new home for the article. It seems that another user's view is that they should be linked to BMW in Formula One. I have brought the issue up here to try and see what others think.

My rationale for linking to Sauber is that the team was still Sauber during the 2006-09 period, still based at Hinwill, with most of the same staff. Furthermore, this continues to be the case in 2010, with the team still called BMW Sauber. I feel it will confusing for some links for what is essentially the same team to go to Sauber and others to go to BMW in Formula One. Please do not let this turn into a discussion as to whether they are the same team or not. This should be about which page is the most sensible to link to. - mspete  93  15:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For 2006-2009, BMW Sauber was to all intents and purposes a BMW works team, even if the production organisation of the old Sauber (and the now new Sauber) was practically the same. The team and the cars were referred to as BMW in the press and on TV, not as Sauber. We wouldn't even have this discussion, if Peter Sauber hadn't bought the team back but (so far) left the BMW name in the full name of the now privatist team. The team was not still Sauber in 2006-09, it was BMW. Now in 2010 it is Sauber again. Links from pages on the 2006-9 seasons should therefor go to BMW in Formula One. I thought we had already agreed on this at Talk:Sauber (but maybe I am interpreting that discussion incorrectly?). John Anderson   (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I never got involved in the original discussion, so with a fresh voice I would agree with John. Links from 2006-2009 were from when the team were BMW, hence should be linked to the BMW in Formula One article. Links both before and after this period should be linked to the Sauber article. It's wasn't the same team, we link to which one it was at the time. QueenCake (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * With regards to the orgininal discussion, I think there was obviously some misunderstanding between those in favour and those against the merger. There was most definately an original majority consensus to what I am suggesting, but it looks like there was a later consensus between other users to what John is suggesting. With regards to the point that BMW Sauber was a BMW works team - that is true, but the problem is is that it was also still the Sauber team, and later returned to full Sauber ownership. There are two ways of looking at it and it cannot be compared to anything like Brawn-Mercedes, so don't mention that. Not everybody will take one side of that arguement so that's why the real agenda here is what it makes sense to link to.


 * The problem I have is that linking to BMW in Formula One instead of BMW Sauber acheives nothing. In fact, I think it is worse. That was not the point of the merger proposal. The point of the merger was to have the 3 stages of Sauber's history in the same article. BMW in Formula One was created to detail all of BMW's involvements as their involvement with Sauber would no longer have its own article. If I knew this was going to be the solution I would not have let it happen. One solution I have suggested to John would be to link them like this: BMW Sauber . I would much rather have kept it as BMW Sauber though, if we can't link to Sauber. I believed BMW in Formula One was going to be an additional page, rather than a replacement for the merged BMW Sauber article. - mspete  93  17:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd go along with mspete's view that BMW were just one owner of the Sauber team. There's no real precedent set for a team being (mostly) sold to a manufacturer, partly rebranded (but retaining the original name) and then being sold back to the original owner. However, as Peter Sauber held roughly a 35% stake during the 'BMW Sauber' era, I'd say there's enough continuity for it all to go in one article, as ownership has never fully changed since the team was founded. AlexJ (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Do we need a precedent to solve a question like this? Ross Brawn still owns part of Mercedes GP, so if he buys the rest back three years from now, should we treat Mercedes GP as part of Brawn GP history? I think not. The fact that BMW kept the name Sauber as part of the team's name means nothing, IMHO. John Anderson   (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * But it isn't Mercedes Brawn GP is it? In terms of continuity, the fact that BMW kept the name Sauber as part of the team's name means quite a lot, IMHO. 13:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "If I knew this was going to be the solution I would not have let it happen", Mspete says. Who is he to decide? I thought we wanted a consensus or at least something most of us could be somewhat OK with. John Anderson   (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Another misunderstanding. What I meant by that was I would have objected to moving BMW Sauber to BMW in Formula One. Having Sauber as part of the name does help for 2 reasons 1) It keeps Sauber as part of the identity of the team, and 2) the team is still called BMW Sauber, thus Sauber is important in the name of the team. Equally important as BMW, in fact. The owner of something doesn't always matter that much. When you think Manchester United, do you think Malcolm Glazer? When you think Ferrari, do you think Fiat? No. I'm not saying this is the same situation, but I'm just saying the owner doesn't always matter as much as you may think. How much BMW Sauber were a BMW and Sauber team is a matter of opinion away from ownership, which as I've said, doesn't always matter. I think together we're drifting off the point again. Re-read the last two lines of my opening comment and you'll see what I mean. - mspete  93  18:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * When I think about Scuderia Ferrari, I think about the car maker Ferrari. That's the connection. When I think about BMW Sauber, I think about BMW, when I think about Sauber (incl. the present team called "BMW Sauber") I do not think of BMW (even if it happens to be part of the name now, but that rather makes me think all the more that it is not really BMW anymore). John Anderson   (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You're just trying to pick faults. I was talking about Ferrari as a brand, not the race team. I was just using it as an example to show that ownership is not always the defining factor. Yes, it is important with BMW Sauber, but just because BMW are involved, it doesn't mean Sauber have to be overlooked. Back to the main issue here. The point of the merged article was to have the main home of the BMW Sauber info in the same article as Sauber, as there is so much crossover between the two teams. Having them in two different places acheives nothing. That is why I feel links should be to BMW Sauber. - mspete  93  20:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I was also talking about Ferrari as a brand. We are obvioulsy seeing things quite differently. I am not trying to pick faults, I am trying to make my point clear. I think it is important to separate BMW Sauber of 2006-9 from Sauber pre-2006 and now, probably mainly for the same reasons you want to treat them as one. There is much crossover between the teams, but that is exactly why I think they should be clearly separated (but still with links between them and also some doubled basic information). John Anderson   (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We're clearly not going to agree, which is why I brought it up here, to allow others to share their opinions. Any of the regular WT:F1 contributors out there? - mspete  93  00:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Without checking to see whose side I'm taking here, and acknowledging that this is a pretty difficult point, I'd say the most useful way to link to BMW Sauber would be to link both BMW in Formula One and Sauber like this: BMW Sauber. My understanding was that both articles would cover the BMW Sauber era. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems to be a very awkward way of dealing with this problem. I think the link BMW Sauber should just go to one article. John Anderson   (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that the pre-BMW-era team and the current team should be detailed in the Sauber article and the BMW-era team should be detailed in the BMW Sauber article. This seems most consistent with how the other teams are dealt with. SamH (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive?
Should some sort of auto-archiving be added to this page? Discussion seems to be filling up the talk page at a fast rate, so there is the need. Auto-archiving is much easier than doing it manually, and stops those of us with poor internet connections and slow computers from having an unwieldy page too often. Just a thought. QueenCake (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Motorsport competitions by year of establishment
I notice the recent creation of Category:Motorsport competitions by year of establishment. Project members may care to add F1 GP articles (e.g. British Grand Prix, etc) into the relevant year subcategory. DH85868993 (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Started proceedings by doing Chinese GP, Bahrain GP (2004), Turkish GP (2005) and Abu Dhabi GP (2009). Singapore and Malaysia are a bit harder to place, as previous motorsport / Grand Prix events have been held in both contries, I think. Orphan Wiki  10:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Most "xxx Grand Prix" articles contain a table of winners, which should indicate when the race was first held, e.g. Singapore_Grand_Prix indicates that event was first held in 1966 and Malaysian_Grand_Prix indicates that race was first held in 1962. DH85868993 (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a case could be made that both year categories could be applied to the same article. Take for example the Bathurst 1000 touring car race is labelled as both 1960, the year the race began, and 1963 the year it moved to its present and most celebrated venue. --Falcadore (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't this clash somewhat with Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1960 these categories for example? As these breakout categories are presently carrying maybe one or two pages at the most, it seems to be to be somwhat a case of over categorisation. Might merging these back into the more generic Recurring events template be better? --Falcadore (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have proposed the cats be merged. Please add any comments you may have to the merge discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, the outcome of the discussion was to merge the categories. So please put articles into "Category:Recurring sporting events established in " rather than "Category:Motorsport competitions established in ". DH85868993 (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have done this for some grands prix now. I just wonder what article to put in a similar category to refer to the world championship itself. The List of formula one constructor champions and List of ditto drivers champions? What do you think would be best? John  Anderson   (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

GP2/3 Series
This isn't strictly related to F1, but as far as I know there's no Wikiproject for the GP2 or GP3 Series. I noticed that someone made pages for the GP3 Series rounds, pages which were then deleted and the data added to the GP2 Series page, as GP3 is a support race for GP2. I'm proposing that rather than being known as GP2 Series pages, they be known as GP Series pages when they include both racing categories. So 2010 Spanish GP2 round page would instead be known as the 2010 Spanish GP Series round. The only other alternative would be to reinstate the GP3 Series round pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be worth asking this question at WT:MOTOR, to gain the input from users across all forms of motorsport. Schumi  555  10:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't use "GP Series" as a title because that's something you've completely made up (unless I'm mistaken). If GP2 isn't suitable for the title and we want them both in the same page, we may have to have something like 2010 Spanish Grand Prix support races. There's already a discussion about these reports at WT:MOTOR, so raise it there. - mspete  93  10:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Horrible horrible horrible idea. Just because GP3 shares the weekend with GP2 or even F1 does not mean we need to add the results of every support series.  We need no GP3 results, period.  The359  ( Talk ) 11:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's pretty obvious that GP3 is being set up as a feeder series for GP2. With GP2 being the premier feeder series into Formula One, there's now a direct conduit through the lower tiers. With Formula 2 rapidly becoming nothing as no F2 driver made the trasition into F1 (except Soucek who is nothing more tha a test driver) and attracting a line-up of no-name stars as several regulars crossed the floor to GP3, this combined with the decline of Formula 3 means that GP3 could become the premier entry-level feeder series. If winning in GP3 makes a driver eleigible for a Superlicence, I'd say it's worth keeping it about. In fact, I'd argue that GP3 results are more relevant to Wikipedia than national F3 series. However, we can't rightly group the GP3 results under the GP2 pages without reflecting it in the title of the article. Maybe something like "2010 Spanish GP2 and GP3 Series round" would work best. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Problem with that Prisonermonkeys is that there is a lot of speculation in your reasoning there and speculation carries no weight. Not sufficiently notable now, whether it becomes notable in the future is irrelevant to keeping the data now. You could make a case for any series to carry ful details by that reasoning. --Falcadore (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * IMHO this is not needed. For example: 2010 Phillip Island Superbike World Championship round article contain both Superbike World Championship results and Supersport World Championship and it does not cause much difficulty. Cybervoron (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sauber
Did I miss something, or did we decide to remove all reference to BMW from the BMW Sauber name in the 2010 season article and all the 2010 race articles? One editor, who will no doubt comment here, has removed all said reference from these articles and claimed that there is a consensus for doing so. Can somebody provide it, please? Thanks. I would add that the official team name is BMW Sauber, not anything else, and this is how the team is referred to in all FIA results lists and tables; it also how FORIX/Autosport refer to them, and many other sources. Given the fact that BMW Sauber were refused permission to change their name to Sauber, we have no business going ahead and doing it anyway. I understand that the discussion on where the team name chould link to is a different matter and is still ongoing, but what name is displayed is not in question, surely? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should still be referred to as BMW Sauber. SamH (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Changing references to the team to just 'Sauber' was never agreed, as far as I know. The user in question is continually swaying the results of discussions in his favour. As everybody knows, the full name of the team is BMW Sauber F1 Team. As shown on the official Formula 1 website, the short constructor name (like Force India-Mercedes or Williams-Cosworth) is BMW Sauber-Ferrari. Thus, in classification tables, they should be displayed as BMW Sauber-Ferrari. It is as simple as that. - mspete  93  20:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. He did actually tell me that he had a consensus because he made the suggestion and nobody replied to him. I rather think otherwise. We already have three in favour of BMW Sauber to his one, so that's a much stronger consensus already. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not how consensus works. Looking at Talk:Sauber there is no consensus at all for such a move. --Falcadore (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought. I'm going to revert the articles back, since there's a clear consensus here and the editor in question hasn't contributed, even though he knows this discussion exists. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You did only just post this a few hours ago, not everyone is on Wikipedia at the same times. 24 hours is really a bare minimum to assume when expecting replies.  The359  ( Talk ) 22:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He was online when this discussion was started, and he was well aware of it. The discussion began on our talk pages and at Talk:Sauber. I'm more exercised by the fact that he edited with no consensus in the first place. The status quo is as it is, so if he wants to build a consensus for a change, he can do so when he is ready. Editors are not supposed to make changes, claim a consensus where there is none, then challenge others to build a consensus of their own to back up the original version of the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll add that any other editor is free to revert me if he/she feels that "BMW Sauber" is not the best way to display the team name for 2010. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreeance to keep it as BMW Sauber. After all, hat's their name. That's how it appears on timing sheets and official documentation. They've expressed an intention to change their name at some point this season, but until then, we should just keep it as BMW Sauber, but link it to the Sauber page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't see the reason for this. Bretonbanquet says there already was a consensus for BMW Sauber, but hasn't been able to point to it. Sauber is Sauber this year, that's why we use that name in the link. Are you people acctually refering to the team as BMW Sauber when talking about Formula One with your friends? The fact that BMW is part of the name is a mere technicality, the team has no connection to BMW now. It would be more logical to spell out Vodafone McLaren or Ferrari Marlboro, IMHO. John Anderson   (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason is that the official name is BMW Sauber, not Sauber. BMW were not a sponsor so the other examples do not apply. They were a technical partner, who for various reasons, retain their name in the title of the constructor. There was certainly no consensus for your change, even though you claimed there was. Your opinion is clear, and this discussion will form a consensus one way or the other. If a consensus for a change to "Sauber" becomes apparent, then we can make the change. Currently there is no consensus to make the change, in fact you are the only editor in favour of the change at the moment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice of you to at least confide to that. I was under the impression you were going to oppose a change 'til hell freezes over, consensus or not, given the frenzy with which you have discussed this so far. John Anderson   (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you are going to remain civil. There was no "frenzy", and you were the one whose behaviour suggested you were up for an edit-war, having reverted two editors who disagreed with you. I don't need to be aggressive in opposing your change, because I can't find anybody whatsoever who agrees with you. I just don't like it when editors with a bad idea push it to this degree, even when they have no support. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You say you didn't need to be aggresive, so why were you? At least that's how I interpreted you. About what's a 'bad' idea or not, that's of course anyone's personal opinion and can't seriously be judged objectively. John Anderson   (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of my manner is not my concern, providing I am editing within the rules and guidelines. Your editing behaviour was what I found to be problematic, given that you reverted two editors without discussion. I can't speak for anyone else, no, but in my opinion, your change was a bad idea. Other editors will make their own minds up. Certainly nobody seems to think it was a good idea, so what's in a word? This discussion has departed from the topic. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, BMW was not merely a technical partner, they were the main owner of the team. John Anderson   (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that they were not a sponsor. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And are we to understand that your further point is that they still are connected to the team? John Anderson   (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would you assume that? You'll see that I am using the past tense to describe their relationship with the team. I am well aware of the lack of input from BMW to the Sauber team in 2010. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It acctually doesn't seem like you are aware of this, given that you are so dead opposed to the very idea that the team should perhaps be presented as Sauber rather than as BMW Sauber in our lists. John Anderson   (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than try to tell me what I do and don't believe, especially since I've just told you what I believe, why don't you try and build a consensus for your argument? I am dead opposed to it, for reasons I have explained. Four other editors here are also opposed to it - I assume you are telling them that they are also unaware of BMW's exit from the team. This discussion is not furthering your cause, I'm guessing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought it should be Sauber and still think so. Even if the name is BMW Sauber F1 Team now, they use no BMW logo and BMW owns nothing of the team. -Ulla — 19:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The team is BMW Sauber. It is not up to us to intrepret what to call the team.  The359  ( Talk ) 03:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is up to us to decide what to call the team in Wikipedia. The article about the team is called Sauber, so why shouldn't the links to that article be called Sauber? -Ulla — 04:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The links to the articles do indeed link to Sauber. They just have the BMW monkier attached to them because BMW are listed in all official material. They appear on the FIA entry list and on timing sheets as BMW Sauber (yes, I know Hispania are listed as both Hispania and HRT in the 2010 table, but that's for clarity's sake). They have expressed an interest in changing the name to simply Sauber (and their intention to do so is clearly marked), but until they physically do, there is no cause to change the name on Wikipedia. It stays as BMW Sauber, and any changes should be considered as vandalism. Endo of story. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Throwing the V word out is not helpful. This a discussion, not demands.


 * And no, if the team's name is BMW Sauber, then we will refer to them as BMW Sauber on Wikipedia. We write what we can reference, not what we feel is correct.  And we have a ton of references that back that the team is BMW Sauber.  The359  ( Talk ) 05:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not issuing demands - sometimes you have to take a hard line. Relevant pages have been subjected to frequest edits canging BMW Sauber to Sauber of late for no god reason, despite referencing that not only gives their official name as BMW Sauber, but which also gives explanations as to why they are known that way. Nor is this the first time we've had this debate, either. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair Prisonermonkeys, the way you that call any edits you don't like vandalism is not really the right way to go about it. Sometimes you have to consider why people are making an edit. From my point of view, it is only vandalism if they are just trying to cause trouble, like vandalism in the real world (e.g. graffiti on a wall). Many edits on Wikipedia, even if against consensus, are actually attempts to be constructive (e.g. adding an unconfirmed driver).

Anyway, back to the topic. Please see this table

Hope that helps to clear it up - mspete  93  16:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't find any reference to BMW as part of the name on the team's homepage. Are they forced to use the BMW part by FIA or what is it? Should Wikipedia prefer to follow what FIA calls the team or what the team calls itself? -Ulla — 08:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What the team would like to call itself is not relevant. Within F1, yes, Sauber are bound by the Concorde Agreement to go under the name of BMW Sauber until the FIA agree to let them change it. The name of the company is a different matter - they can call it whatever they like - hence the styling they use on the website. In terms of the F1 team, it's BMW Sauber and that's it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see, but my question was about what the team calls itself, not what it would like to call itself. Maybe that distinction doesn't matter. I just think it is strange that this matter should be ruled by FIA for Wikipedia rather than by the team and the public/what most people say/WP:ASTONISH. -Ulla — 22:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, but a distinction has to be made between the team and the company. The company (Sauber) operates the team (BMW Sauber). Clearly the company has no compunction to promote the BMW name on its website or anywhere else, for reasons that are obvious. But the fact remains that the team is called BMW Sauber. It doesn't matter what anybody thinks - it's a fact. The Concorde Agreement is what it is, and Wikipedia can't pretend in this case that it has no effect on BMW Sauber's name. The matter is ruled by the FIA for us at Wikipedia in exactly the same way as it is ruled by the FIA for Sauber. I'd add that apart from you and Mr Anderson, "most people" appear to be happy with BMW Sauber, and that the majority are apparently not in the least astonished. Otherwise, where is the objection? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Formula Grand Prix articles
Here is a question, and using the weekend's [|2010 Spanish Grand Prix captured almost a day after the race] as an example. One of the keys of good article writing is that the opening paragraph should describe the event and its most important aspects in summary at the top of the article.

And yet the opening summary section contains points score prior to the race, Costructors score prior to the race and details of the 2009 Spanish Grand Prix. All of which did not occur in the running in the event indicated in the title. All of which should actually be contained within the background section. Surely it is background information?

What is the most important single statistic of a motor racing sporting event? Would it be fair to say that it could be winner of the event? Leaving aside the infobox, the race winner, described as such, is not mentioned until the 17th paragraph of the article.

This is an encyclopedia. There are some of us writing these article in an unencyclopedic style.

Is any of the above criticism unfair? --Falcadore (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Points score leading into the race is usually added ahead of the event. I'm guessing the rationale is that if someone reads the 2010 Spanish GP page and then advances to the 2010 Monaco GP page, they'll see the standings as they are. It makes sense and is perfectly reasonable to include such information in the lead-in to the event, but we're just forgetting to remove that stuff after the event. And the reason why race reports are usually added up to a day after the event is because I'm the one doing the race reports. I live in Australia, and we don't get the race until the network with broadcast rights chooses to play it, so we get a delayed telecast for each and every race of the year (except for Australia). As that generally means the telecast finishes at 1am, I'm hardly in the mood to be writing detailed race reports. If someone else wants to do it, I have no objections so long as the tone and the style are kpt relatively the same. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Missing the point. This isn't about (your laudable) work ethic or the quality of writing of the report, but rather just the content of the lead paragraphs. --Falcadore (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought that about the lead paragraph of the latest GP article. It's all about what happened before the race and the build-up to it, and there's just a belated "oh and by the way, Webber won" at the end of the section. I think that after the race, all the build-up stuff can either be junked or moved, and the lead should concentrate on the actual race, which is what the article is supposed to be about. Whether or not the build-up stuff is there prior to the race, I don't think that matters, but it should disappear afterwards, I think. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'm missing the point at all, Falcadore. I'm just saying that the race reports aren't being written until maybe 24 hours after the fact. By that time, we've all forgotten that the intro needs to be altered. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The intro should not be written like that in the first instance. These articles should not have news magazine style previews. --Falcadore (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Falcadore, we are Wikipedia not Wikinews. Keep it encyclopedic and try to create articles that are time-insensitive right from the start of their life. By all means briefly summarise the standings prior to the race in the "Background" section, but as ever you should be trying to write in a stable, past-tense form, and giving appropriate weight with respect to the subject of the article and in light of the fact that we have articles on all the previous races and the season as a whole. You are, of course, free to ignore our advice and write as you please, but do expect to attract criticism if you write chunks of text with built-in obsolescence and then don't clean them up when the time comes.  Pyrop e  21:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

BBC Formula One TV coverage
Recently, I came across the article BBC Formula One TV coverage, which, not being sure where to raise this, probably falls under our remit. This is essentially a copy of several BBC webpages such as this one outlining the BBC coverage for the year. Now, after having a look around, there are no other articles completely dedicated to sporting TV coverage, so I would imagine this is a likely candidate for Deletion. Any thoughts? QueenCake (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree: I don't think a television station's coverage of a particular sport is a suitable subject of an article.-- Midgrid  (talk)  18:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not badly written, but I can't say I see the point of it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have put the article up for deletion. QueenCake (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

2013 Formula One season
A completely new editor has created this new article has been nominated for deletion. Bit too far in the future hey? --Falcadore (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think its difficult to see the motives for that one. Didn't the 2012 article come up recently? And I thought that was too speculative! - mspete  93  21:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The unspoken rule seems to be to have pages prepared for two seasons in advance. And the 2012 page is pretty clean no; someone went through and cut away all he dead wood. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Swedish Grand Prix merger
Recently the Swedish Grand Prix has been split into two articles, Summer and Swedish Winter Grand Prix and while there are obvious reasons for doing so, the resultant articles are fairly short. Is diversification really warranted? Rather than rush in with a merger tag I thought I'd float the idea first to guage opinion whether the history of the Swedish GP, like all the other Scandinavian races, who have strong ice racing traditions, is better served as a combined article, as it has up until yesterday. --Falcadore (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The separate article about the winter grand prix was created a month ago. The summer grand prix is still described in Swedish Grand Prix but now also has a race report for one year (which shall be added to, I shall see if I can translate more from the corresponding Swedish page) in the aricle 1933 Swedish Summer Grand Prix. I won't mind a remerger of the articles, if that's what people think should be done. John Anderson   (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Hamilton
FYI Anthony Hamilton (manager) has been created and prodded. DH85868993 (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the short length of the article as it is now, it could just as well be merged into the article about Lewis Hamilton. John Anderson   (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Monaco Grand Prix
Why does the article keep saying that "Petrov was the fastest of the rookies"? I mean how is that notable considering that he has by far the fastest car of all the rookies? Dr. Loosmark 14:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's unsourced; remove it. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. I am also not sure that "Felipe Massa impeded the progress of Kovalainen as the Finn was completing a flying lap." as the article says. At least it didn't seem that way on the TV. Maybe Heikki something in that regard afterward so I will leave it in the article for now but it would be nice if a source would be provided for that. Dr. Loosmark  15:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Since I'm the one who is writing these reports up, allow me to explain my rationale. Because we've had problems in the past where the free practice write-ups have been longer than the race write-ups, I've worked out a little formula for myself to concentrate on the important bits for the article. They are as follows: 1) the prevailing weather conditions, 2) the top three drivers in the session, 3) the fastest of the rookie drives, 4) the fastest of the rookie teams and 5) any major incidents, including accidents, stoppages on the circuit and mechanical woes that may befall anyone. No, I didn't run that past anyone before I started using it, but I figured that was the point of being bold. No-one has objected to it and the write-ups are generally pretty good, even if I do say so myself. And while Petrov may have the fastest car of the rookie drivers, but that does not mean he will be the fastest of the rookie drivers. I include the likes of Alguersuari under the definition of "rooke" driver since it's his first full season. I will add, however, that I'm considering cutting my five points back to three because I feel that the write-ups for practice sessions are still a little long. Instead of listing the fastest rookie driver and rookie team for each session, I'm thinking a better solution would be to wait until after the final session and add to the final paragraph a sentence or two about which rookie driver and which rookie team sets the fastest time of the three sessions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Alguersuari is not a rookie because he contested half season last year (8 races). All other rookies have cars which are literally seconds slower than Petrov, so unless he has a mechanical failure he will finish ahead of them in each and every session. It is thus totally not notable that he is ahead of the other guys. Apart from that there is also no official rookie classification, contest or anything so the best is not to mention this at all. Dr. Loosmark  20:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure anything about "rookies" is notable anyway. Firstly, we're struggling for a definition of "rookie". My own personal opinion is that neither Alguersuari nor Kobayashi are rookies, since they competed last season. Secondly, in terms of the sport in general, none of these guys is a rookie, since they all have considerable experience in other series. There are indeed more experienced drivers in lower formulae at the moment - more experienced than guys like Alguersuari for instance. Thirdly, talking about the fastest rookie driver is flawed because they drive radically different cars - you might as well talk about the fastest German or the fastest guy in his 30s. Lastly, Formula One has no history or tradition of talking about rookies - it's something associated with American racing, and as Loosmark has said, there's nothing official in it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons
The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at WikiProject Formula One/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 45 articles to be referenced, a 4.3% reduction from last week. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added at least one source to most of the drivers. I've indicated which ones I've done by striking through the name. DH85868993 (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow...that was quick, but I guess F1s are quick! No need to strike through the names on the list, the bot will just overwrite it tomorrow when it does it's next update (at about 0500 UTC), but thanks a lot for your efforts. The-Pope (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done Desiré Wilson as best I can - she's the only one mentioned in Steve Small's book who hadn't already been attended to by DH85868993. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Only four left guys - surely there must be sources on these? -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

1981 South African Grand Prix
Do we consider the 1981 South African Grand Prix to be a non-championship Formula One race or a Formula Libre race? 8W (and the article itself) identify it as a Formula Libre race. If we do consider it to be a Formula Libre race, then I guess we should remove it from Category:1981 Formula One race reports, 1981 Formula One season and the "non-championship race results" sections of any relevant driver articles. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason it has been deemed a formula libre race is, the teams participating did not follow the formula one specs of that year (but rather of the year before, I think). It wasn't very far from the formula one regulations, though, and was originally intended to be a real formula one race. I think we should let it stick in the formula one categories, since it forms part of formula one history despite the specs used. John  Anderson   (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Originally intended to be a Formula One race, and definitely part of the story of that F1 season (FISA-FOCA war etc), so I'd say it should stay provided it's clear that in the event it wasn't run to current F1 rules. 4u1e (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * http://forix.autosport.com/8w/za81.html seems to give me the impression that it was run using 1980-spec F1 cars (sliding skirts and all), but since these were illegal under 1981 rules, it was promoted as a Formule Libre race, where "anything goes", it's just that "anything" really meant last year's F1 car. That page also gives the background as to why it was non-championship, the date moving, monkey business with the tyres, etc. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than trying to pigeonhole it into one category or another, wouldn't effort be better spent improving the article to explain fully the rather unique circumstances under which the race was run? AlexJ (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it was ostensibly a Formula Libre race but was effectively an out-of-date F1 race. It's an anomaly, but a hell of a lot closer to F1 than your average Formula Libre race. I agree that the article should ideally make it very clear why the race ended up as the mess it was. The1965 Rand Grand Prix was another similar thing, though this was a race which anticipated new regulations, before they actually came into effect. Technically Formula Libre outside the country in which it was held, but still F1 of a sort. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)