Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 8

Team/constructor infobox templates
1. template:F1 team appears to be geared towards currently active teams/constructors. Pyrope has created an alternative infobox template (template:Former F1 constructor) which I believe is more appropriate for defunct constructors - see it used in Team Lotus). I propose that defunct constructor articles which currently use template:F1 team be changed to use template:Former F1 constructor instead.

2. If we're only going to use template:F1 team for active teams, then does it still need the (recently added) "Final race" field (which I think is only populated for a couple of teams)? One option would be to change the text "Final race" to "Last race" (similar to "Last Grand Prix" in template:F1 driver), which could then be interpreted as "Latest race" and updated on a race-by-race basis; another option would be to just remove "Final race" altogether. A third option would be to add code so that "Final race" is only displayed if it's populated (like "First Win" and "Last Win" in template:F1 driver. Thoughts? DH85868993 02:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There's also (template:Former F1 team), as used on Brabham. Oops. We don't need both, obviously (Actually - see below). Differences seem to be as follows:
 * a)Former F1 constructor (FFC from now on!) has 'Founder/s' and 'Designer/s' where Former F1 team (FFT from now on) has 'Notable staff'. The former is more specific about what people did (good), the latter allows for people like Charlie Whiting or Jo Ramirez who are notable enough to have their own articles, but aren't founders or designers.
 * b) FFT has 'notable drivers' as well, I think this is relevant.
 * c) FFC has 'engines', FFT does not. I don't feel strongly about this either way.
 * d) FFC has 'entrants', FFT does not - that makes sense actually, but see below.
 * e) FFC uses 'official name', FFT uses 'full name'. Trivial difference.
 * We can merge the two with just a little discussion about what goes in - I would suggest that the 'notable staff' and 'notable drivers' lines are useful too. 'Entrant' is only needed if you are talking about a constructor, not an entrant.
 * We're back into the 'entrant' vs 'constructor' thing though, aren't we? (This is the 'see below', by the way). It would be legitimate to have both tables, since both categories exist, but for a majority of the entities we are talking about we would have both tables and they would largely overlap. Do we need two separate tables? I didn't think so, but it occured to me that the differnces between the two versions curently in existence are down to their names, so I guess it's worth thinking about. 4u1e 08:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good points all. Personally, I reckon it might be a case of excluding information that is duplicated between the two boxes, rather than combining the two together. One of the reasons that I haven't rolled out the FFC box more widely is that I appreciate the need for a parallel FFT/E/whatever box. I've been meaning to start this discussion for ages! Cheers, anyway...


 * 1) Some constructors only ever built cars to order (e.g. Alta or, arguably, Lola) and so would need only the FFC box.


 * 2) Most also ran as entrants, but with significant differences between the design team and the race team (e.g. Rory Byrne, while a significant part of Ferrari on the construction side, isn't really heavily involved come race day). These I would argue should retain both, especially as for some (e.g. Cooper) the racing entity folded before the last appearance of one of their cars in a GP (as I know you are itching for the precise instance: Vic Elford at the 1969 Monaco Grand Prix was entered by Antique Automobiles Racing Team, not Cooper ;-). Or conversely Frank Williams Racing Cars, which started out as an entrant only, and became a true constructor with the FW04, a good few years after Frank started out.


 * 3) However, there are loads of defunct entrants who never built a car of their own. These would only need the FFT box.


 * Personally, I don't regard the drivers as a significant part of a constructor's history, that information is far better attributed to the entrant history. Similarly, the designer (e.g. Rory Byrne) is a distinct entity from the team pricipal (Jean Todt to continue this example) or technical director (Ross Brawn etc etc).


 * I also don't think that there is too much duplication elsewhere in the tables. The number of victories for Team Lotus will be different from the number of victories for Lotus cars, for example (yes, so maybe Lotus needs the FFT box added... hmmm). To fly with Lotus for a while, I also think that there is a distinction between the official constructor name and the full entrant name (some variation on Team Lotus). The only duplication (apart from basic stuff that has to remain if the two boxes are to be able to be used independantly) is the inclusion of Constructors' Championship victories in template:Former F1 team (entrants don't win the Constructors' Championship after all), and possibly Drivers Championship victories in template:Former F1 constructor, for similar reasons, although arguably the number of drivers championships is of interest in a manufacturer history: discuss...


 * Finally, in summary (shut up self), I reckon that both boxes should be retained. FFT needs a title, and we need to compromise on the width of the box, but I think the two are complimentary, and not conflicting. Retaining both, but highlighting the differences therein, will also serve to distinguish what we mean when we refer to a constructor or an entrant/team. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pyrope (talk • contribs) 13:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Ah yes... idiot. Sorry. Pyrope 14:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well... having read all that, I think I'll have to leave you two to decide! ;-) Adrian M. H. 16:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, here are my thoughts. (Sorry, it's a bit long). I think there are 6 different types of entrants/constructors we need to cater for:
 * "regular" constructor/entrants, who only ever raced their own chassis and never supplied their chassis to anyone else (e.g. Jordan, Ligier, Amon, Prost, Coloni, etc)
 * constructors who never ran a works team and only supplied chassis to others (e.g. Dallara)
 * entrants who only ever ran other people's chassis (e.g. Scuderia Italia)
 * constructor/entrants who ran their own chassis plus other people's (e.g Hill)
 * constructor/entrants who ran their own chassis and supplied them to others (e.g. Lotus)
 * constructor/entrants who ran their own chassis, supplied their own chassis to other people and also ran other people's chassis (e.g. Tyrrell)

I think we do need the two different infoboxes (i.e. FFT and FFC). For "regular" teams, where the "as an entrant" numbers and "as a constructor" numbers are the same, I think it makes sense to only have one infobox on the page.

Here are the fields I think we need in each template: (* = field is only displayed if it populated)
 * FFT: Full name, Base, Founder(s), Notable staff, Notable drivers, Constructors, Debut, Last race, Races competed, Const Champ*, Drivers Champ, Race victories, Pole positions, Fastest laps
 * FFC: Full name*, Base*, Founder(s)*, Designer(s), Engines, Entrants, Debut, Final race, Races competed, Const Champ, Drivers Champ, Race victories, Pole positions, Fastest laps

Sample populated templates:

"Regular" team - FFT only:

Former F1 team: Jordan
 * Full name:	Jordan Grand Prix
 * Base:		Silverstone
 * Founder(s):	Eddie Jordan
 * Notable staff:	Mike Gascoyne
 * Notable drivers:	Damon Hill
 * Constructors:	Jordan-Ford, Jordan-Yamaha, Jordan-Hart, etc!
 * Debut:		1991 US GP
 * Last race:	2005 Chinese GP
 * Races competed:	250
 * Const Champ:	0 (best finish: 3rd in 1999)
 * Drivers Champ:	0 (best finish: frentzen 3rd in 1999)
 * Race victories:	4
 * Pole positions:	2
 * Fastest laps:	2

"Entrant only" - FFT only

Former F1 team: Scuderia Italia
 * Full name:	BMS Scuderia Italia
 * Base:		somewhere in Italy
 * Founder(s):	Beppe Lucchini
 * Notable staff:	???
 * Notable drivers:	???
 * Constructors:	Dallara-Ford, Dallara-Judd, Lola-Ferrari
 * Debut:		1989 xxx GP
 * Last race:	1993 xxx GP
 * Races competed:	???
 * Const Champ:	0 (best:...)
 * Drivers Champ:	0 (best:...)
 * Race victories:	0
 * Pole positions:	0
 * Fastest laps:	0

"Constructor only" - FFC only

Former F1 constructor: Dallara
 * Full name:	Dallara Automobili
 * Base:		Parma, Italy
 * Founder(s):	Gian Paolo Dallara
 * Designer(s):	???
 * Engines:		Ford, Judd, Ferrari
 * Entrants:	Scuderia Italia
 * Debut:		1989 ??? Grand Prix
 * Final race:	1992 ??? Grand Prix
 * Races competed:	64
 * Const Champ:	0 (best finish: 10th in 1992)
 * Drivers Champ:	0 (best finish: xx in xx)
 * Race victories:	0
 * Pole positions:	0
 * Fastest laps:	0

"Constructor/entrant who ran their own chassis, supplied their own chassis to other people and also ran other people's chassis" - FFT and FFC

Former F1 team: Tyrrell (Note: "Const champ" field not populated/displayed)
 * Full name:	Tyrrell Racing Organisation
 * Base:		Ockham, Surrey, UK
 * Founder(s):	Ken Tyrrell
 * Notable staff:	"race team people"
 * Notable drivers:	Jackie Stewart, Francois Cevert
 * Constructors:	Matra-Ford, March-Ford, Tyrrell-Ford, Tyrrell-Renault
 * Debut:		1968 xxx Grand Prix
 * Last race:
 * Races competed:	xxx (total races competed by the Tyrrell team, as opposed to 430 competed by Tyrrell the constructor)
 * Drivers Champ:	3 (1969, 1971, 1973)
 * Race victories:	xx (total wins by the Tyrrell team)
 * Pole positions:	xx (total poles by the Tyrrell team)
 * Fastest laps:	xx (total fastest laps by the Tyrrell team)

Former F1 constructor: Tyrrell (Note: "Full name", "Base" and "Founder" fields not populated/displayed)
 * Designer(s):	Derek Gardner
 * Engines:		Ford, Renault
 * Entrants:	Tyrrell Racing Org, Eddie Keizan
 * Debut:		1970 xxx Grand Prix
 * Final race:
 * Races competed:	430
 * Const Champ:	1 (1971)
 * Drivers Champ:	2 (1971, 1973)
 * Race victories:	23
 * Pole positions:	14
 * Fastest laps:	20

Notes:
 * I realise that "Const champ" doesn't really make sense for an entrant, but it needs to be there if we want to be able to use just FFT for a "regular" team.
 * (I think) the word "Constructors" looks a little bit weird in FFT, but I couldn't think of a better word. I considered "Chassis", but I thought if I called it that, people would put in things like EJ14, EJ15, etc

Thoughts? DH85868993 09:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you should sleep some time ;-) Anyhow, that all (and how) seems to make sense. So long as we can standardise the width of the tables and make sure that there are titles for each it should work. It looks analagous to the way that Pyrope 14:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've made substantial changes to template:F1 team, template:Former F1 team and template:F1 constructor (formerly template:Former F1 constructor). The deal is: DH85868993 13:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * for a constructor which never ran a works team (e.g. Alta Car and Engineering Company), use template:F1 constructor, specifying all the fields
 * for a team which never constructed their own chassis (e.g. Scuderia Italia), use template:former F1 team and populate the "Constructors" field
 * for a "standard" constructor/team (only raced their own chassis and nobody else raced their chassis), e.g. Jordan Grand Prix, use template:F1 team or template:Former F1 team, as appropriate
 * for a "complex" constructor/team (raced other people's chassis in addition to their own and/or other people raced their chassis), use template:F1 team or template:Former F1 team to record the team's achievements, and a [template:F1 constructor]] (with duplicate fields not populated) to record their achievements as a constructor - see Tyrrell Racing and Team Lotus for examples.

Grand Prix country codes
Was a definitive decision ever reached regarding country codes in results tables? It was discussed here but there doesn't seem to be a definite conclusion. I'm planning to update some driver results tables soon, and I'd rather do it once rather than twice... DH85868993 11:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my misunderstanding, but are we talking about Template:Flagicon? Because you don't need to put the country code in, you can just put the country name in. Anyway, sorry if that wasn't what you meant...-- S kully Collins Edits 12:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, what I'm asking about is: in a driver or constructor career summary table, should "German Grand Prix" be abbreviated to "GER" or "DEU"?; should "South African Grand Prix" be abbreviated to "SAF" or "RSA"?, etc. DH85868993 13:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The latter, because we need to take into account the people that read these articles for interest but don't have specific knowledge in the subbject. Besides we're not governed by the FIA on Wikipedia ;-).-- S kully Collins Edits 13:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you point me to a list of the agreed abbreviations for all GP countries (and "non-countries" such as Las Vegas) that I can use as a reference? Thanks. DH85868993 13:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've had a go, but I'm not sure if you'll like it:
 * Aregtinina - ARG
 * Australia - AUS
 * Austria - AUT
 * Bahrain - BRN
 * Belgian - BEL
 * Brazil - BRA
 * Britain - GBR
 * Canada - CAN
 * China - CHN
 * Holland - NED
 * Europe - EUR
 * France - FRA
 * German - DEU
 * Hungary - HUN
 * Indy 500 - IDY
 * Italy - ITA
 * Japan - JPN
 * Korea - KOR
 * La Vegas - LVS
 * Luxembourg - LUX
 * Malaysia - MAS
 * Mexico - MEX
 * Monaco - MON
 * Morocco - MAR
 * Pacific - PAC
 * Pescara - PES
 * Portugal - POR
 * San Marino - SMR
 * South Africa - RSA
 * Switzerland - SUI
 * Turkey - TUR
 * United States - USA
 * West - USAW
 * East - USAE


 * I made sure that the non-country ones didn't cross-over with a country. Neat table coming soon ;-).-- S kully Collins Edits 13:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would start by using the international standard abbreviations (3-letter, not 2-letter, of course), which you pretty much have done. Except that Morocco doesn't have an A in it, so it should be MOR. Adrian   M. H.  14:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We didn't ever reach a proper concensus on this before, but I always think that, this being an English language Wikipedia, Germany should be "GER", Switzerland should be "SWI", Morocco "MOR" and Netherlands "NET". There's no logical reason to use German for Germany, French for Switzerland and Morocco etc instead of English if we're not going to use a set system borrowed from somewhere else. I don't see why Bahrain shouldn't be "BAH" as I think it is on the tables now (there's never going to be a Bahamian GP) and the Indy 500 is down as "INDY" on the tables because it's easier to understand at a glance. Likewise "MAL" for Malaysia. Bretonbanquet 20:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Spain isn't on that list - I guess we have a choice between "ESP" or "SPA". Even though "ESP" is not English, in this case I would go for that because "SPA" may confuse with Spa-Francorchamps. Bretonbanquet 20:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly believe that the international 3-letter codes should be used - they almost always are (generally speaking). That means DEU, CHE and ESP. SUI is an acceptable alternative, but not SWI. It's not as if their meaning is obscure. See ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 for a pretty complete list. - Adrian   M. H.  21:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Adrian_M._H. here. Makes sense to be entirely systematic as far as countries are concerned. Not sure what to do about the others - EUR seems fair enough but i'm not keen on the inconsistency between USAE/USAW and Las Vegas.Spute 22:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You think "CHE" for Switzerland is not obscure? Casual readers of the articles will simply not know what that means. The ISO system is not logical in any sense. If Germany is "DEU", why is Hungary not "MAG"? Or Austria "OST"? Under what normal everyday circumstance is that system used? Quite apart from the fact that many of the codes we will have to use aren't included in the ISO list. Why on earth is "SUI" OK, but not "SWI" - where is the logic? Bretonbanquet 23:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously an emotive issue. Should we vote on it perhaps? You can show your support for various options in the table below. ISO abbreviations are highlighted in bold. Feel free to add any options I've omitted and/or move races from the "non-controversial" table to the "ones we need to decide about" table. DH85868993 01:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-controversial ones (hopefully!)

Ones we need to decide about: Take it easy, Bretonbanquet. To answer your question, SWI is not used, because it would be anglicised, but SUI is commonly accepted because it represents "Switzerland" in the country's biggest spoken language. The ISO standard is precisely that: an international standard, which no doubt was not the work of a moment and was intended to prevent confusion or debate. Take RSA for example. Stands for the Republic of South Africa, and is in universal usage. I have never seen SAF in official usage. Adrian  M. H.  16:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am taking it easy. My earlier post was not intended to display anger at anyone here, I just can't stand ISO systems. I understand the use of "SUI" for Switzerland, but as I pointed out, the same rule does not apply for many other countries, hence my question of where the logic is in the ISO system. As you say, it probably wasn't the work of a moment, but it was, in my opinion, a time spent lacking any clarity or common sense. I haven't seen "SAF" in general usage either, and I'm not advocating its use here. I would just prefer to distance this project from the ISO system, which is not only a shambles, but not suited to our purpose, lacking as it does many codes which we have to devise ourselves. Bretonbanquet 20:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I just put in a plea to seriously consider not using 4 letter abbreviations. Space in these tables is seriously limited in most cases, even before wasting space by forcing three or four results columns to be uselessly wide. Pyrope 22:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: the 4 letter codes - I think there's less of a problem with the "USW" / "USE" codes than the "IND" code - especially if there's ever an Indian GP... Diniz added "500" after I voted, but I think that's not a bad compromise. Bretonbanquet 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point about India. Who knows where Bernie will take us next. I have adjusted my vote accordingly. I still see 4-letter abbreviations as a no no. As for other locations, perhaps we ought to start debating the Abu Dhabi round (or Abu Durbi as the BBC website had it for a while)? If we start now we might reach a consensus by 2009! Pyrope 08:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

My preference is to use IOC country codes where possible in sport-related articles, even if they're not Olympic sports. It makes sense to be consistant with abbreviations accross all sports. Gasheadsteve 09:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've put all the current IOC codes in the second table in italics. Majin Izlude  talk  10:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Are all the votes in? If so, we could decide on these and start amending the tables as we find time. Bretonbanquet 11:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think everyone's had long enough. The "winners" are:

giving a complete list of:

Go forth and update! DH85868993 01:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's great :o) Can't believe we've finally sorted this out.. haha Thanks to everyone who gave their opinions. Bretonbanquet 16:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Lotus 107
I've just noticed something which I wanted to bring up. The Lotus 107 article starts like this:

The Lotus 107 was a Formula One car designed for the 1994 Formula One Season, it brought in a final, frustratingly limited and short-lived period of competitiveness for the legendary Team Lotus in Formula 1.

However, in the 1992 season article, it says the Lotus 107 is used for this season. For the 1993 season, it says the Lotus 107B is used for this season. For the 1994 season, it says the Lotus 107C is used for this season.

Which version is right? Davnel03 17:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The latter. The article even refers to 1992. Changed it. -- Ian Dalziel 17:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Scuderia
Currently, Scuderia is a redirect to Scuderia Ferrari. I agree with the comment on the "Scuderia Ferrari" talk page which says that it should not. But I wasn't sure what to do about it. Would it be better to: DH85868993 02:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * nominate Scuderia for deletion
 * change it into an article about the "Scuderia" magazine (listed here but about which I know nothing further]]),
 * turn it into a disambiguation page, listing "Scuderia" magazine and Scuderia Ferrari (and all the other "Scuderias", i.e. Scuderia Toro Rosso, Scuderia Italia, Scuderia Centro-Sud, etc?), or
 * something else?


 * A diambiguation page sounds like a good idea, with a brief definition in the intro. Something like "Scuderia means stable in the Italian language. It has enetered English usage manily through motorsport, where many Italian organisations use the term." Not too well phrased, but you get the point. Then you can do the usual diambig thing. Pyrope 10:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for the guidance. DH85868993 13:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Last/Latest/Final race for current F1 teams
What do we want to see in the infobox for current F1 teams?: Noting that:
 * Last race: n/a
 * Last race: n/a (current team)
 * Last race: Current team
 * Latest race: 2006 Brazilian Grand Prix
 * nothing
 * we could use the word "Final" instead of "Last" (whichever we choose, we should probably make template:F1 team and template:Former F1 team consistent])
 * if we go for the "Latest race" option, then every current team's article will have to be updated after every race (but they will anyway, since their "number of races" will have changed)


 * Latest for currently active teams, and Final for defunct outfits would leave little room for confusion. Pyrope 10:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. DH85868993 13:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Number of Grands Prix when populating templates
When populating templates, does number of Grands Prix mean number of races entered or just the number actually started? Once I know the answer, I'll include it on the discussion page for the relevant templates, for the benefit of future editors. Thanks. DH85868993 14:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To my mind, it should only mean starts, not just turning up and having a go at qualifying. That's the widely accepted statistical approach outside of Wikipedia. Adrian M. H. 15:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What about drivers who qualify but don't start? Gilles Villeneuve's last race at Zolder is normally included in his stats for example, but he was killed in qualifying and didn't race. 4u1e 09:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In my experience it generally means 'number of GPs entered', and I don't accept that the other way is the usual way - most reputable sources specify both the number of entries and the number of starts. In some cases we would otherwise have "GPs = 0", which looks like a driver has never been involved in a grand prix, and might invite deletionists to start pruning articles.  A grand prix is the whole weekend, not just the race on a Sunday. There's surely no obstacle to putting both stats for entries and starts in the infobox..? Bretonbanquet 13:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In my experience, "GP starts" are what are commonly specified in driver stats: In Autosport and many other specialist magazines, they list starts only (with limited space, they prefer to distinguish between the two figures). On Forix, where there is more room for figures, presences are listed, with starts highlighted: see Fernando Alonso, for example. Speedsport, for example, has followed the "starts approach" and opted to list only Julia Kuhn's two starts in the F3 Euroseries, even though she attempted to qualify for two races at another round. As we don't have any particular space limitations, I would concur with you 100% that both figures should be included, but as far as Wiki goes, there should always be that distinction between starts and appearances. Including in Villeneuve's stats a race that occured after his death is only misleading and inaccurate: that some other sources simply list all presences without any distinction does not necessarily make it good practice. Adrian M. H. 13:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Forix is what I was thinking of specifically. I suggest we make a move towards including both figures then, with a clear distinction between them. I don't much want to go down the road of what constitutes a 'start' though - in the case of restarted races it gets complicated and often illogical. Bretonbanquet 23:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Don't worry about re-starts: I have never heard of anyone counting them as separate starts,

as it is not a new race as such. Adrian M. H. 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem I find is when a race starts, and there's a huge pile-up and someone's car is destroyed - if there's no spare or he's injured, that driver doesn't make the re-start. So did he start or not?  Often you see that counted as a 'DNS' - I recall Niki Lauda's reaction to the idea that he didn't start the 1976 German Grand Prix - he said, "So what happened to my ears?" Bretonbanquet 23:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A driver is deemed to have started a Formula One Grand Prix once his car has crossed the start line under its own power. If it fails to make a re-start, it is still classified as a starter, and should be listed in the finishing classification as a DNF. If it breaks down on the formation lap, or fails to make the start itself for any other reason, then it has not started the race. Indy 2005 for example. Adrian M. H. 00:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We agree then :o) That's the way I've always looked at it, but there are those who have other ideas - such as the concept that any red-flagged starts are totally null and void and only the final successful start counts, hence those who don't make the restart are classed as DNS.  Ideally, no-one here will give us an argument and it'll all be simple. Bretonbanquet 00:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OK then. If we've agreed that we should present both numbers, then the items we need to update are: The next thing to decide is terminology. For "number of races actually started" we can either use "Starts" or "Races started". But what about "the other number"? Candidate terms would include "Entries/Races entered", "(Race) Appearances" and "Race presences". But note that the terms aren't completely interchangeable; consider the 1982 San Marino Grand Prix: Williams entered the race, but didn't appear. DH85868993 09:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * List of Formula One drivers
 * template:F1 driver (and the 29 articles that transclude it)
 * template:Former F1 driver (and the 549(!) articles that transclude it)
 * List of Formula One constructors
 * template:F1 team (and the 38 articles that transclude it)


 * I'd suggest having the heading as "Races (starts)" and then the stat showing 49 (40), for example, so it could just be shown on one line. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 10:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I like that idea. Since we're not adding an extra element to the templates, we won't immediately break all the transclusions. Good thinking, AlbinoMonkey! - DH85868993 10:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine with me - Races (starts) seems to be a very simple way of doing it, and it shouldn't take too long. Many will actually be the same figure, e.g. Races (starts) - 23 (23). The thing with entries gets complicated when you see that drivers were entered in races in advance, with the result that sometimes a driver that had been killed in the previous race is still officially entered for the next one, even though it'll never be included in his stats.  I would say "Presences" is a better bet if we want to be more specific than simply "Races". Bretonbanquet 18:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Pretty close, but if you want to have just one line for the data, I would go for something along the lines of Races:(starts/entries) or Entries/starts: as I think either of those makes it clearer. Two seperate lines would, of course, be preferable in an ideal world! Adrian M. H. 18:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time to revive this discussion. I've noticed a few instances lately (e.g. Alain Prost) where editors have "corrected" the number of Grands Prix in a driver's infobox to be the number of starts. It's really not clear to the casual reader/editor what the "Grands Prix" number means. Would people be happy if I start including number of starts in brackets after the number of GPs, e.g. Prost's infobox would read: Grands Prix: 202 (199 starts) ? DH85868993 05:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * seems like a fair way to deal with it. Grands Prix, as I see it, cover the whole weekend. You can enter a Grand Prix and not start the race, e.g. not qualify or have a mechanical failure. MonkeyMumford 12:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple of supplementary questions: DH85868993 06:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we want to display the number of starts if it's the same as the number of Grands Prix? i.e. would we prefer to see "Grands Prix: 2 (2 starts)" or just "Grands Prix: 2" ? Note that one advantage of always specifying the number of starts is that we can tell whether a particular driver's infobox has been updated or not.
 * How do people feel about the idea of changing the text "Grands Prix" in template:F1 driver and template:Former F1 driver to "Races competed" (for consistency with template:F1 team and template:Former F1 team), or even just "Races" ? (To me, "Races competed" suggests that the driver actually took part in the race).

A useful link to data for the 2007 F1 season
Autosport has updated its hub page for F1 season info, ready for 2007, complete with journal links, detailed circuit maps and other useful data. It's available at http://www.autosport.com/f1/2007.html I'm sure this will prove convenient for upcoming research. - Adrian M. H. 21:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * nice idea. However, we would have to rely on people who have a subscription. MonkeyMumford 12:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget WikiProject Motorsport
I thought it would be a good idea to post a reminder about our parent WP; WikiProject Motorsport. We currently have only two editors listed on the List of Members, but I'm sure that there are more of you out there! Those of you who haven't already contributed to it are more than welcome to do so, particularly if you have specialised knowledge of any racing discipline that doesn't have a dedicated WP. If enough editors get together and coordinate their efforts, we can make a big difference to the neglected areas of Wikpedia's motor racing content. Regards, Adrian   M. H.  20:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Formula One race reports
There's currently some inconsistency in the use of Category:Formula One race reports. Prior to 1988, the individual race reports (e.g. 1987 Australian Grand Prix) are in Category:Formula One race reports. From 1988 onwards (with a few exceptions), the individual race reports are in Category:19xx in Formula One and Category:19xx in Formula One is in Category Formula One race reports. I'm not sure I agree with the post-1988 arrangement, because Category:19xx in Formula One can contain things other than race reports - for example Category:1994 in Formula One contains Death of Ayrton Senna. I'd rather see: Thoughts? P.S. Apologies if this has been discussed before - I did look through the archives, but there is a lot of stuff in there! DH85868993 14:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * all the individual race reports in Category:Formula One race reports and Category:19xx in Formula One, and
 * Category:19xx in Formula One not in Category:Formula One race reports.
 * You have raised a good point, of which I wasn't aware. The first system seems logical, but the second version may leave some articles mis-categorised. Adrian   M. H.  14:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In order to resolve this problem, I would propose the creation of the categories Category:19xx Formula One race reports into Category:Formula One race reports and Category:19xx in Formula One. In Category:2006 in Formula One and Category:2007 in Formula One they have been already created the categories for the cars participants at Formula One World Championship, respectively Category:2006 Formula One season cars and Category:2007 Formula One season cars. I think that in the same way can be subdivided therefore also the races disputed year by year. As an example, in the 1994 let the article Death of Ayrton Senna into Category:1994 in Formula One and all races into Category:1994 Formula One race reports. What do you think? Piniricc65 14:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. Good solution. Let's do it. DH85868993 02:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of Category:Williams people
FYI, it's been proposed to rename Category:Williams people to Category:Williams Formula Team. Those with an opinion on the subject may care to comment here - DH85868993 14:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Following discussion, the proposal is now to rename Category:Williams people to Category:Williams Formula One people. Furthermore, it has been proposed to rename Category:McLaren people to Category:McLaren Formula One people. See discussion here. Note that it has not been proposed to rename Category:Ferrari people, on the basis that the category is not limited to F1-related people. DH85868993 14:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If we do that, that means we'd have to do it for ever team renaming it, no offense, but in a way, it's a bit pointless, we should just keep it the same, it's doing no harm. There again, I admit Category:Williams Formula One does sound better. Somebody should put in a proposal for the rest too. Davnel03 15:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No offence taken, Davnel. Just to clarify, I'm not the one proposing the changes; I'm just reporting it here so that people who are interested can make their views known on the CfD page. Also, what do you mean by "the rest"? As far as I'm aware, there are only the three categories this applies to: Category:Williams people, Category:McLaren people and Category:Ferrari people. DH85868993 02:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just one quick query. All three of the debated teams are or have been involved in ventures away from F1. Ferrari sports racing cars, the McLaren F1, Williams's involvement in touring cars etc etc. Would the new categories be specifically for their F1 personnel? If the answer is yes, thn I can only feel that we are being narrow minded. Pyrope 08:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, Category:McLaren people has been renamed as Category:McLaren Formula One people and the relevant articles have been updated. DH85868993 03:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Likewise, Category:Williams people has now been renamed as Category:Williams Formula One people and the affected articles have been updated. DH85868993 04:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinks for minor teams?
Recently I've updated quite a few driver career summary tables. When filling in the "Entrant" columns, on numerous occasions I've had to decide whether to enter the name of a minor team as a red wikilink, or just plain text. To date, I've been making somewhat arbitrary decisions, primarily based on my best guess as to whether the team is ever likely to have its own article. Is that a sensible approach? Or should we specify all team names as wikilinks, on the off chance that someday an article might be created for them? The same question applies to the "Private Entrants" section of List of Formula One constructors - do we want to see a long list of red links thee? Or no red links at all? Or just red links for the teams which we think are likely to have their own article someday? DH85868993 07:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If the teams are notable enough to have articles created which will not be deleted, then I would say keep the red links, as this will encourage people to create them. If the team's aren't notable enough, then there's probably no point (I noticed yesterday that the minor team Olson was deleted for not being notable enough).  However, this solution is subjective and arbitrary, so we might just have to rely on trial-and-error. ;-) --Diniz 17:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree - most of the teams that are notable enough to have their own articles already have them. If one turns up that hasn't got an article but could realistically have one, redlink it. If it seems unlikely, don't bother. Trial and error seems like the way forward. It's not like we can't link things afterwards if articles get created. Bretonbanquet 17:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't fear the red links. They serve a purpose when reading: in addition to the "please write me" message that they send, they also highlight to a casual reader that no further information exists on that topic and is therefore no point in spending time searching for it. Pyrope 18:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

2006 Formula One season
I've just nominated this for feature article. To vote, it's at this link. Davnel03 17:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Changed to a peer review instead. Please comment!--Diniz 21:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

2 different car templates - which one you should use...
Hi, I've noticed two different car templates floating around. What I've done, changed some of the templates to the second design. I think all the templates are now on the 2nd design. If you create one in the future, please try to use the second design to avoid a potential confusion. Many thanks Davnel03 17:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't the first design the better one though? It seems a generic Navigation template, with far less Wiki markup. Alexj2002 21:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah - this is my fault, really. I created several of these templates before I knew about navigation templates (the first version).  I should have corrected them sooner...--Diniz 22:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Another point - I think that it's unnecessary to duplicate a team name if they use more than one chassis during a season, so Super Aguri SA05 • SA06 is preferable to Super Aguri SA05 • Super Aguri SA06.--Diniz 22:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So consensus reached then? The first one should be the design used and the second phased out. Alexj2002 15:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I still think the second one is better. Also, all it means is that somebody's going to have to go around and change all of the templates in a vote that included all of two people. We may as well leave it the same and leave all the fuss. Don't you think it looks fine? Davnel03 17:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well we're going to have to go one way or the other, and it won't be all because some would already be in the format. We didn't have a vote either, we try to obtain consensus. Anyway they don't look much different to each other, and I can't say I really favour one over the other on aesthetic grounds - it's the mess of code that goes with the second one. However you can add | color= #ccccff to the template code which would give.


 * This looks similar to the second one while having the code & v.d.e./hide features of the first. Downside: Some modification would have to be made to all the templates, be it a replacement or adding the colour line. Still, a compromise maybe? Alexj2002 17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed; I'll start changing the templates somebody can help me do it!! Davnel03 18:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

2007 F1 Car Photos
Seems as the season has yet to start, we haven't got any freely licenced photos of the new cars. I've noticed that copyrighted photos have been put up on some articles. Nearly all have no fair use rationale. Just a reminder that we need the FU rationale, and also to only upload press promotional photographs released by the constructor and not commercial/news agency photos (such as the soon to be deleted Image:BMW F1.07.jpg). Alexj2002 22:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well article-wise I have some regret. However if the uploader can't be bothered to provide a fair use rationale I have no problem with the deletion whatsoever. Mark83 01:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * agreed. Fair Use Rationale should always be added and only promo photos from the constructor are allowed. Although how about promotional photos from sponsors? MonkeyMumford 21:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Formula One games
Should Formula One games that have come out on PS2, PC and XBox be included in WikiProject Formula One? I don't think they are at the moment, and I think we should include them - they are part of F1. Davnel03 14:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not really our field of expertise though. Yeah we could include them as they're F1 related, but I doubt we'd do much work on them (there's hundreds of articles that would take precedent). WP:CVG cover them at the moment, I think it's best left to them. Alexj2002 14:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article
Just noticed we've got nothing in the TFA queue at the moment. Can I suggest we put something in, seems as it'll probably take a few months to reach the front page. I suggest Brabham should go on there next. Alexj2002 14:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest 1994 San Marino Grand Prix to try and hit May 1 with it. I think they can go in at fairly short notice if there's a strong reason for a date, though, so perhaps Brabham first and then San Marino. (I've still got changes I want to make to Brabham by the way, but I think that might be a permanent situation, so perhaps we shouldn't wait!). 4u1e 22 February 2007 14:17
 * Alright then, we'll go with Imola 94. Which picture do you suggest is used? Alexj2002 16:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking the picture of Senna - he's the name most people will associate with the race. The image of the crash will be considered in poor taste by many (not including me - it's not a close up and illustrates a major event event of the weekend), and is a lower resolution image (I know why this is!). Other views? 4u1e 22:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't nominated for TFA before - could you have a look at User:Alexj2002/Sandbox3, and let me know if it looks OK/suggest any improvements. Alexj2002 23:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't either, but it looks fine to me! 4u1e 00:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Jansen Van Vuuren
I've nominated him for deletion; the discussion is here. Davnel03 17:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We've actually discussed him before but I forgot to do anything about it. Readro 18:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can somebody perform a merge to 1977 South African Grand Prix - I don't know how to. Davnel03 20:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo (Formula One)
Some of you may have noticed that: A question: If there's overwhelming support for "Alfa Romeo F1", I might change it. DH85868993 06:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * following discussions on its talk page, the former "Alfa Corse" article has been renamed as Alfa Romeo in motorsport. (Alfa Corse remains as a redirect). The rational was that the name "Alfa Corse" suggests works involvement, whereas the intent of the article is/was to cover all motorsport involvement, including both works and non-works.
 * F1-related references to "Alfa Romeo" are now being linked to Alfa Romeo (Formula One) (which is a redirect to Alfa Romeo in motorsport) rather than Alfa Corse. My rationale, as explained on the talk page is that I suspect that as Alfa Romeo in motorsport develops, there will come a time when the F1 section will be split out as a separate article. So I thought it made sense to define a dedicated F1 article (redirect) from the start, so that all the links only need to be changed once.
 * Would people have been happy/preferred if I had named the article as "Alfa Romeo F1" rather than "Afa Romeo (Formula One)" ?
 * OK, the Alfa Romeo links are all done now (so I withdraw my offer to change the name :-). And Alfa Corse is no longer a redirect; it's now an article in its own right again. DH85868993 11:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Marshalling in Formula One?
Diniz suggested this article and I was pretty interested about it. But I only know the major milestones:
 * 1973 Dutch Grand Prix - Lack and Equipment and Training for marshals ultimately costs the life of rookie driver Roger Williamson
 * 1977 South African Grand Prix - Over emthusiasm cost a young Jansen Van Vuuren his life after being struck by Tom Pryce along a blind brow.
 * 2000 Italian Grand Prix
 * 2001 Australian Grand Prix

Indeed as you can see, I've forgotten a few things. Like:
 * When was the first race with marshals?
 * Since Williamson's accident, have marshalling preparation been improved?

Anyway, I'd like to hear your thoughts.-- S kully Collins Edits 07:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe their's no reason why there's not an article - there really should be. Davnel03 16:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Number for GP's
I've just noticed something in the template races boxes on several race reports. For some, we list roman numerals and some we list the normal number e.g.

Roman Numerals:     XXXVI Monaco Grand Prix Normal:              36th Monaco Grand Prix

Which one should we use (I prefer the first one)? Davnel03 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That depends on the race's official name. Most seem to be Roman from what I can see. Pyrope 20:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment Page on WPMotorsport
I've made some changes on the WikiProject Motorsport Assessment page. I've done this so it goes in line with other projects, see this assessment page for example. Please don't delete it though - it's taken a long time for me to do. Davnel03 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Partial lists of World Drivers Champions
Do we really need (to use) the partial lists of World Drivers Champions (i.e. Formula One World Drivers' Champions 1950-1969, Formula One World Drivers' Champions 1970-1989 and Formula One World Drivers' Champions 1990-2009)? I contend that the full list, without the "navigation bit" down the bottom, isn't much different in size (height) to the partial lists. And if we only had/used the full list, then we don't need the "navigation bit". Also consider that Prost and Senna each have two partial lists in their articles, which together occupy way more space than a single complete list would. Thoughts? DH85868993 13:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the full list is a better option. The other one adds clutter to category listings and the years selected are halfway arbitrary. Guroadrunner 00:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I had always thought that they were pointless. Not only the arbitrary nature as pointed out above, but their layout makes them hard to read. Pyrope 16:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've updated all the WDCs' articles to use the full list. I'll get around to deleting the partial templates soon. DH85868993 07:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The partial lists have been deleted. See Tfd discussion here. DH85868993 05:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A request for opinions
I know this WikiProject is strictly speaking about Formula One, but this has some relevance. I've been working on things to do with the pre-war European Championship as of late, and I was wondering what people thought of this - the 1935 season summary page. Do you like the layout? Is there anything that could be bettered? Anything else you can think of as well would be much appreciated. I value any input you might have. Thanks. Readro 01:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it. It could use some discursive preamble to highlight the major points and save readers from trawling through the stats, but otherwise great. Pyrope 16:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I agree with Pyrope about the preamble to give some context. You could also link to the article on the European Championship (auto racing). (Note by the way that that article gives Caracciola 12 points as oppposed to the 11 you have. I understand that interpreting pre-war results tables is an arcane and difficult process, however!). Finally, I'm always amazed by how many pre-war drivers and cars already have their own articles. Cheers 4u1e 2 March 2007, 17:04


 * A rework of European Championship (auto racing) is in progress because its facts are wrong in many many areas. The numbers are virtually all wrong, so it's best to ignore the current version for now. Readro 17:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. Fair enough. Have you left a note over at WikiProject Motorsport, by the way? 4u1e 18:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Records" section in F1 constructor/team articles
Scuderia Ferrari and McLaren each have sections entitled "Records", and Toyota F1 has a section entitled "F1 Statistics", all which have recently been the subject of a fair bit of activity (and some debate on the respective talk pages). Do we want to apply some common guidelines to these sections (and any similar, future ones), e.g.: etc. Or are we happy for each article to develop independently, with discussions occurring on the respective talk pages? DH85868993 01:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * duplication of information already present in the infobox
 * which "records"/statistics are worthy of inclusion
 * clarification of whether a particular number is the current (or former) record across all teams/constructors, or whether it's just the "record" for this particular team/constructor
 * I don't think it's something we absolutely have to standardise - some teams don't hold any records, while others have lots. My only concern at Toyota F1 was the degree of duplication between the infobox and the 'statistics' section. I think it's easy to go over the top on statistics, and I do get a bit impatient with things like 'Only left handed driver to win three races in a row where the first race began with an 'F' and there was a 'J' in the month. In a green car.'. On the other hand, many people find statistics fascinating, so I've no objection to them, provided they're referenced (and true!). 4u1e 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Monaco Grand Prix FAC
Monaco Grand Prix is still on FAC. At the moment, I don't think it will pass, partly because of objections that I have raised, although others have expressed similar views. I'm struggling on completing the referencing of the article - in particular on the organisation of the race. If anyone can contribute the missing refs that would be great.

I also have some suggestions on structure on the talk page - to do with the 'notable races' section. I'd be grateful for the views of other editors. Thanks. 4u1e 20:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent example
I just wanted to say that 2006 Brazilian Grand Prix is an excellent example of a report page. All report pages should look like this. -- Thelb 4 08:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's getting there. But for me, the position and size of the images used has really messed up the text formatting. The might be pretty, but they make it hard to read. Pyrope 10:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I'd say that 1994 San Marino Grand Prix, 1997 European Grand Prix and 2005 United States Grand Prix should be used as the benchmarks for F1 race reports (seems as they are all either FA's or GA's). There are way to many pictures on the Brazilian one, even having a picture before the lead! The majority of the 'one car only' pictures don't add to the article and should go IMO. The infobox map doesn't look professional. Some of the trivia in the notes section (esp. the Massa flag incident) should either go in the article or get deleted. (I'd say Massa flag should go into the article and the Raikkonnen incident seems pretty non-notable and should be removed). Oh and to cap it off, the article has just 4 references. I'd say it's probably a B-class article at the moment. Alexj2002 12:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There's not a huge difference in layout is there? Although Alex is right - better to take as your models those articles that have been assessed as meeting GA or FA. I agree that there are too many pictures - and I don't think pictures in the lead is normal practice (although one has been added to the 2005 US GP as well). Four references is of course not enough for GA standard - and one of those is a Youtube link, which needs to go as well because it's copyrighted material illegally reproduced on Youtube. 4u1e 16:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact it's already been taken down from Youtube, so I've removed the reference. 4u1e 16:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Exclusions / Bans
Is there any interest in differentiating between exclusions and bans in driver results tables? I always understood an exclusion to be a disqualification during practice or qualifying, either for an on-track incident, a technical infringement, or for missing a weight check. This used to happen quite often during the 1980s and early 1990s, for example Stefano Modena at the 1988 Mexican Grand Prix and the 1988 Monaco Grand Prix. A ban, such as the one that BAR and their drivers received a couple of years ago for the fuel tank infringement is a different thing, resulting in that driver or team not being present at the event at all. I suggest adding a "Ban" code to the template to illustrate the difference. At the moment, "EX" is used to cover both eventualities. Bretonbanquet 16:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they both mean the same thing; I'd use exclusive it sounds more technical.Davnel03 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've always read it much the same as you Bretonbanquet, with exclusion meaning to get taken out of the event, and ban to mean not allowed to participate in the event in the first place. Alexj2002 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember that we discussed something along the lines of... if a competitor doesn't participate at all then we leave the box blank in the table. Precise reasons to be given in the article. I'm not fussed either way mind. Pyrope 19:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Exclusions and bans are definitely not the same thing. What Alexj2002 has said is exactly the way I look at it. The problem with leaving the boxes blank is that people come along and put "EX" in them... I think maybe if there was a "Ban" code in there, those people would leave it there. Bretonbanquet 14:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fastest laps in summary tables
What do people think of Diniz's idea of highlighting fastest laps in driver and constructor career summary tables in italics, similar to the way in which we highlight pole positions in bold. DH85868993 09:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought we agreed this was a reasonable idea? Pyrope 13:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)