Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/Archive 7

homogenization of champions tables
Hi, User:Officially Mr X start homogeneize the championships tables in main page of several racing series like Formula Renault V6 Eurocup, GP2 Series, World Series by Renault, Formula V6 Asia, A1GP, Superleague Formula, F3 Euroseries, International Formula Master, Spanish F3 and some other. The homogeneization is a good think but I'm not so sure with the content of these tables. The tables include the season year, the first, second and thrid driver, the team champion and if necessary some more informations. But I think, second and third overall drivers isn't so important. So I think these table do not descript correctly the seasons with too many informations not so helpful ; except in A1GP and Superleague Formula who are team series. Maybe we have to find an homogeneized table more accurate, or I'm wrong ? - Rollof1 (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is a general to be used, this isn't it. It looks terrible, far too much colour and bold text. --Falcadore (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Banger Racing
There is currently discussion as to weather banger racing can be classified as a profession. Input in this discussion would be helpful and please remain civil throughout the course of the discussions. --Lucy-marie (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's nice. Where? You don't appear to have contributed to it. And as far as civility goes, using edit summaries that include "FFS do not..." might open you to charges of standing in a greenhouse throwing stones.  Pyrop e  15:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It must have something to do with Murder of Sarah Payne. I don't see a discussion happening. I suppose there probably are a few fully professional banger racers in the world. I'd need to see the context before I comment about a situation. I agree with Pyrope about being careful....  Royal broil  01:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer the top question, for those who think banger racers is a paid career, answer this; have you ever met a fully salaried and sponsored driver (just like that in almost every open wheel/sportscar/touring car/rallying category) who makes his living entirely from banger racing, I don't think so. Hence I stand by my decision to say that it is not a profession, it is more of a hobby. Donnie Park (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I've never actually met a fully salaried racing driver either, not on social terms anyway. Evidence must surely be available one way or the other? 4u1e (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories for winning drivers
Having two tables for International F3000 champions (1 and 2), three for Speedway World Cup winners (1, 2 and 3) and two for GP2 champions (1 and 2), I believe that we don't really need categories such as this, this and this. What do you think? --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Sportscar season
I notice that Template:Sportscar season is being used in some non-sportscar articles, such as 2006 Formula BMW UK season, 2006 Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters season, 2007 Formula Three Euroseries season and 2006 World Touring Car Championship season, etc. I wonder do we need a generic "Motorsport series season" template? On the other hand, Template:Sportscar season doesn't appear to be sportscar-specific in any way (except for the name of the "Sportscar_series" parameter), so perhaps the existing template (and parameter) could be renamed (although obviously that would require updating all existing transclusions). Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I thought. I used it on all of the WTCC seasons because there was nothing sportscar specific and I didn't know what I could use without creating a new template. mspete93   [talk]  16:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It indeed can be used on any article, really. It was created when I was writing articles on sports car series and the only navigation template available was the F1 template which had some F1-specific additions.  A generic name would be best.  IIIVIX  ( Talk ) 23:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, unless there are any objections within the next couple of days, I will:
 * Rename the template as "Template:Motorsport series season",
 * Done... although I named it Template:Motorsport season. What's the right name? --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That name seems fine to me. DH85868993 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename the "Sportscar_series" parameter as just "Series", and
 * Update all the articles which transclude the template (including sportcar racing series season articles)
 * DH85868993 (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Updates complete. DH85868993 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Racecar driver by century categories
I've just discovered the following somewhat underpopulated categories: which are part of a "Sportspeople by century" category structure. What do people think of these categories? Anyone interested in populating them? DH85868993 (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:20th-century racecar drivers
 * Category:21st-century racecar drivers
 * I don t think it should be an issue of 'interest', as yours is likely to be more motorsport than categorising across wikipedia, although I know, in the end, that it largely is. As DH85868993 says, these are part of a larger structure, Sportspeople by century, which is in turn part of an even larger Category:People by occupation and century.  If you are would rather not have these, then please nominate to get rid of the supracategory pages, such as Category:Sportspeople by century, and don t just take out this limb.  I tried to with Category:20th-century people by nationality, a sister tree to this, but failed - here was the discussion . Mayumashu (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 19th century might be of more interest, but the difference between 20th and 21st, there might be maybe a couple dozen 21st who aren't also 20th century... --Falcadore (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Now we have: I think that's overcategorisation, especially considering we don't have, or. Note that the "xx-century yy racecar drivers" categories aren't fully populated - each contains fewer than 4 articles. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have proposed the subcats (i.e. the ones listed under "Now we have") for deletion. DH85868993 (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The subcats have been deleted. DH85868993 (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

New champions table
Just asking, but User:Officially Mr X tells me that this table is the new look for such tables being used across WPMS, and I just wanted to say how ugly this thing looks. Overpowering use of both bold text and colour shading, it just drags the eye away from everything else in the article. Plus is it really necessary to show champion teams, top three point scorers and minor class champions? Wouldn't that information, particularly the latter two, be better conveyed by the article written on each years series? --Falcadore (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The extra detail is not necessary. It goes against the style of Wikipedia and I don't remember it ever being agreed on here. Readro (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look and all I saw was flagflagflagflagflagflag... Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Turns out User:Officially Mr X has been doing this to a LOT of pages, starting with small series. Do we really need this level of... garishness. --Falcadore (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahhh seems this is the second thread on this subject, lookng up a few threads. --Falcadore (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's too much work and it's too overwhelming for no reason. Per WP:COLOURS, we shouldn't be using colours to convey much information because colorblind/blind users won't be able to access the content. I don't like this format - I'd rather see plain white.  Royal broil  03:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Revert it all back to what it was before. It's just plain ugly right now. Cs-wolves  (talk)  16:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, obviously I'm getting a chunk of criticism for this which to me seems a little unnecessary but here's why I 'altered' the tables: They are informative, accurate, comprehensive and give the top 3 of drivers for the year even on pages where no page for the season exists. They also match with the existing format on driver pages where the table that says what championships they have competed in shows any 1sts, 2nds or 3rds in the medal colours (e.g. Fernando Alonso, Lucas Di Grassi, Sébastien Bourdais or any other driver). To me this seems like progress but if your just going to bog yourself down with Wikipedia regulations or whatever they are then I'm confused. Explain to me what is wrong with flags and a little colour to divide columns of winners. To me having no colour/bold would make it seem undefineable and a bit dull. I struggle to see any benefit in having the pages faceless in black and white, and with such as basic level of information. Officially Mr X (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We already did explain. Read it again. --Falcadore (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well blind people couldn't access it anyway. There are no red/green combinations: the backgrounds are fairly subdued and used elsewhere without question. Explain again. Officially Mr X (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that the blind don't use the internet? Can you possibly try not to be offensive? --Falcadore (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be offensive to anybody and nor do I want to keep digging myself a hole but can we please concentrate on what started off this discusion without turning it into a personal assult against my edits. Anyway I'm aware the blind use the internet, my point is that the colour or font would make no difference to them. Officially Mr X (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Against a plain white background like that, fairly subdued is not subdued enough considering the size of colour blocks you've used. Any shift in colour stands out and magnifies. The use of box shading should be used in very small doses because of the power of magnification it can represent. It says 1st, 2nd, 3rd in your column headers, the addition use of the gold, silver, broze shading is overkill. The column headers are more than obvious enough, why does it need colour as well? --Falcadore (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand how perhaps we could live without the background colours but I did say it was to match the format used on driver pages and in other sporting fields where medal colours are used to define the top 3 in events. In my opinion the contrast doesn't seem too bad. Even so, how's this for a compromise:

Officially Mr X (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Or we could just restore it to what it was before, this is still too much, it's not just the colours but the bold text, it still shouts at you. If you look at the tabling performed in the large series articles, Formula One and others, none of this formatting appears. The many edittors have had years to evolve this format and get it right.
 * The unneccesary addition of additional columns forces text wrapping within the table onto a second line, for no real positive gain. The majority of people who browse into a racing series page might be interested in the champion, but little beyond that. For those who want more detail on who was second or third, we create 2007 Australian Drivers' Championship to detail that data. If it actually meets Wikipedia's note-worthy critera.
 * In short, it was fine how it was, and this is in no way an improvement. --Falcadore (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not happy with the result: you have been tediously arrogant. Who are you to decide they should be reverted? I don't revert your edits why must you have such a problem with mine? You have ignored my compromise and so what if it "shouts at you", it really isn't that bad, I could shout at you. All I've heard is your opinion and then you've taken matters into your own hands and reverted my positive edits which aren't offensive, inaccurate or destructive. Officially Mr X (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole point of these tables what to make them uniform from one series to another and not a random mess which you've now reverted them to. The colours where to match the same thing shown on driver pages and the bold was to make a clear definition between the year/current series name and champion drivers/teams. Officially Mr X (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Falcadore is not alone in his opinion. It is supported by several other editors who all agree that, although your concept is "uniform", it is not the best solution.  Just because your edits aren't wrong does not mean they should stay.  Therefore based on the opinions of several, including myself, the charts have been put back to where they once were.  IIIVIX  ( Talk ) 09:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well can we not have a page just for the new type of table (maybe even without the colours) for the people who want a fuller picture of the all the seasons together. I changed the tables because I thought the current tables looked irregular, dull and quite honestly s***. Am I really the only one here who cares more about motorsport than Wikipedia. Officially Mr X (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They are not supposed to look bright and eye-catching. The most important part of any article is the text, because that is whayt tells the story. A table is supposed to be an aid and should not dominate the piece. This fundamental seems to be slipping you by. --Falcadore (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you agree a standard table would be good across all series then at least make one you like instead of reverting it back to what it was. WHERE IS THE PROGRESS?!? Officially Mr X (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The very best way you could assist in improving the motorsport content is not with the statistics. Most wikipedia motorsport articles are overloaded with statistics as they are. The majority of article need more writing and better text editting more than anything else. IMHO. Piecemeal one sentence at a time editting over the course of months takes its toll. That would certainly be progress.
 * What do you think gets more articles progressed to B class, Good Articles, Feature Articles, etc, a pretty table, or clear well constructed writing? I truly admire your enthusiasm, I just wish it could be better directed. --Falcadore (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good but tables and stats speak louder than words. Words are vague and easy to become misleading. Who honestly wants to read paragraphs of text on a sports page: they want results, tables and statistics with a brief written summary including anything interesting or unusual about the seasons' events. Progress would be creating seasons page for all those which still have none. What you have done is remove accurate information, actually reduce the pages' fact content: if anything is vandalism, what you've done is vandalism. Officially Mr X (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point of Wikipedia somewhat. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a book of statistics. Suppose I add all drivers that year to the table - by your logic, no one can revert it because it would be removing accurate information and thus vandalism. The point is that it's a summary table - all relevant information pertaining to each season is on each season's individual page. There is no need to repeat it in the main article. Stating the champion is all that ought to be in a summary table. Readro (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Words are vague"? That's a stunning statement. I couldn't agree less with Officially Mr X's last post. Motorsport articles are absolutely swimming with stats and tables - what we need is decent commentary and explanatory text. Those people who aren't interested in improving the text, and more so those who would see it minimised for the sake of more tables, are not much use to the Project, frankly. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's fairly simple. These are meant to be Tables of Champions.  Second and third place are not champions.  If you want to know who finished in second or third or tenth, you can go to the season page and look at the full standings.  IIIVIX  ( Talk ) 20:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with The359, Bretonbanquet, Readro and Falcadore on this one. "Who honestly wants to read paragraphs of text on a sports page"? Me. We're primarily a general purpose encyclopedia, not a stats site. 4u1e (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I always suggest new table formats before I start mass adding them, Mr. X. You've made others bring it up after the fact instead of asking for everyone's opinion. That doesn't usually go over very well. Also, the "What Wikipedia is Not" policy talks about statistics. See NOT. They are right, Wikipedia is here to be an encyclopedia, not a statistics source. It's fine to add statistics, but statistics are not the focus of articles - the focus is paragraphs of content. I've done two Good Articles for NASCAR drivers where I added their season statistics after they had become Good Articles.  Royal broil  05:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a new 'suggestion'.
 * I'd like fresh ideas on whether you would approve of this as a motorsport champions table. Don't worry I'll prepare myself for a fall as usual with your baffling critiques.
 * {|class="wikitable"

!Season!!Series Name!!Champion!!Team Champion!!Lights Class Champion ! 2004
 * align="center"| World Series by Nissan
 * 🇫🇮 Heikki Kovalainen
 * 🇪🇸 Pons Racing
 * Miloš Pavlović (2004 Lights)
 * }
 * In theory you could have the year column without the bold but I genuinely think the table looks more structured with, and most other pages (e.g. A1 Grand Prix) already use that style for the year column: it gives more definition for the columns and rows. I think the table is as subdued as realisticly possible. The only other, drearily bleak, lifeless alternative is:
 * {|class="wikitable"


 * Season
 * Series Name
 * Champion
 * Team Champion
 * Lights Class Champion
 * 2004
 * World Series by Nissan
 * Heikki Kovalainen
 * Pons Racing
 * Miloš Pavlović (2004 Lights)
 * }
 * Remember my main aim is to create consistancy throughout the tables and in other areas of motorsport. Officially Mr X (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * }
 * Remember my main aim is to create consistancy throughout the tables and in other areas of motorsport. Officially Mr X (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be a bit careful about the usage of Series Name column. It blows out the width unneccessarily (some can be quite long) and in particular the usage of an abbreviated term like Ch'ship was not a good look. In the majority of instances it is far prefereable to cover the changing name of a racing series by writing a paragraph about it.
 * If I could say something about the urge to be uniform, the series themselves are a long way from uniform with each other. Some may have individual requirements that no other series does. Also be careful about the usage of Team Champion as not every series has a pointscore for teams. The team of the champion driver should not be used as a substitute for a lack of a team prize.
 * And if an article looks drearily bleak and lifeless, don't try to fix it by making a more colour ful table, add a photograph. --Falcadore (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

and again
Please can you stop with this top three and series name, just please stop. --Falcadore (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I want this resolved as quickly as you appear to but whereas you were once talking sense you are now being ridiculous in my view. If you look below, you now say you prefer the top table to the one below:
 * {|class="wikitable" style="font-size: 95%;"

!Year!!Series name!!Drivers' Champion!! Teams' Champion ! 1998 ! 1999 ! 2000 ! 2001 ! 2002 ! 2003 ! 2004 ! 2005 ! 2006 ! 2007 ! 2008
 * -style="background:#efefef"
 * -style="background:#ffe0e0"
 * Open Fortuna by Nissan || 🇪🇸 Marc Gené|| 🇪🇸 Campos Motorsport
 * -style="background:#ffe0e0"
 * Euro Open MoviStar by Nissan || 🇪🇸 Fernando Alonso|| 🇪🇸 Campos Motorsport
 * -style="background:#ffe0e0"
 * Open Telefónica by Nissan || 🇪🇸 Antonio García|| 🇪🇸 Campos Motorsport
 * -style="background:#ffe0e0"
 * Open Telefónica by Nissan || 🇫🇷 Franck Montagny|| 🇮🇹 Vergani Racing
 * -style="background:#faf0f0"
 * Telefónica World Series || 🇧🇷 Ricardo Zonta || 🇪🇸 Racing Engineering
 * -style="background:#faf0f0"
 * Superfund World Series || 🇫🇷 Franck Montagny || 🇫🇷 Gabord Competition
 * -style="background:#faf0f0"
 * World Series by Nissan || 🇫🇮 Heikki Kovalainen || 🇪🇸 Pons Racing
 * World Series by Renault || 🇵🇱 Robert Kubica || 🇪🇸 Epsilon Euskadi
 * World Series by Renault || 🇸🇪 Alx Danielsson || 🇦🇹 Interwetten.com
 * World Series by Renault || Álvaro Parente || 🇫🇷 Tech 1 Racing
 * World Series by Renault || Giedo van der Garde || 🇫🇷 Tech 1 Racing
 * }
 * {|class="wikitable"

!Season!!Series Name!!Champion!!Team Champion!!Lights Class Champion ! 1998 ! 1999 ! 2000 ! 2001 ! 2002 ! 2003 ! 2004 ! 2005 ! 2006 ! 2007 ! 2008
 * align=center| Open Fortuna by Nissan
 * 🇪🇸 Marc Gené
 * 🇪🇸 Campos Motorsport
 * align=center| Euro Open MoviStar by Nissan
 * 🇪🇸 Fernando Alonso
 * 🇪🇸 Campos Motorsport
 * align=center| Open Telefónica by Nissan
 * 🇪🇸 Antonio García
 * 🇪🇸 Campos Motorsport
 * align=center| Open Telefónica by Nissan
 * 🇫🇷 Franck Montagny
 * 🇮🇹 Vergani Racing
 * align=center| Telefónica World Series
 * 🇧🇷 Ricardo Zonta
 * 🇪🇸 Racing Engineering
 * 🇮🇹 Matteo Bobbi (2002 Lights)
 * align=center| Superfund World Series
 * 🇫🇷 Franck Montagny
 * 🇫🇷 Gabord Competition
 * 🇦🇷 Juan Cruz Alvares (2003 Lights)
 * align=center| World Series by Nissan
 * 🇫🇮 Heikki Kovalainen
 * 🇪🇸 Pons Racing
 * Miloš Pavlović (2004 Lights)
 * align=center| World Series by Renault
 * 🇵🇱 Robert Kubica
 * 🇪🇸 Epsilon Euskadi
 * align=center| World Series by Renault
 * 🇸🇪 Alx Danielsson
 * 🇦🇹 Interwetten.com
 * align=center| World Series by Renault
 * Álvaro Parente
 * 🇫🇷 Tech 1 Racing
 * align=center| World Series by Renault
 * Giedo van der Garde
 * 🇫🇷 Tech 1 Racing
 * }
 * Issues with your table: 1.You can't complain about mine having a series name column (which is necessary) when yours also has that 2.Whereas mine does not, your table has background colours which you've ranted endlessly about disliking and saying they are bad for the colourblind etc. 3.You have competely ignored the 'Lights Series' champions which for 3 years was a secondary class of WSbR and have links to the seasons pages. 4.There is nothing about my table which is worse than yours, quite the opposite in fact. Officially Mr X (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Issues with your table: 1.You can't complain about mine having a series name column (which is necessary) when yours also has that 2.Whereas mine does not, your table has background colours which you've ranted endlessly about disliking and saying they are bad for the colourblind etc. 3.You have competely ignored the 'Lights Series' champions which for 3 years was a secondary class of WSbR and have links to the seasons pages. 4.There is nothing about my table which is worse than yours, quite the opposite in fact. Officially Mr X (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. They are not 'mine'. 2-4, refer 1.
 * And just because another table has a certain look, doesn't make it a good look. And as re-iterated multiple times, tables should not be used in place of text. --Falcadore (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't be difficult and picky: writing "yours" was just a quicker way of writing "the table you seem to prefer". Now please return to the issue.
 * I wouldn't mind someone else's opnion on this from a more neutral perspective who doesn't support Falcadore just because he has more Wikipedia experience or because you are affraid not to agree with him or because he seems to sound more like he knows what he is talking about. I have done nothing wrong but Falcadore constantly insists he knows best and is playing a very clever game in order to be controlling and get his way on every edit. (That's my opinion, okay, but must I really feel like I'm fighting alone on this? In fact I'm not alone on this, but most others who do agree with me don't use talk pages and these such discusions because they have more sense quite frankly, and they just get on with edits quietly and then get shot down for it by users such as Falcadore and all the rest for reasons either unknown or uncomprehensible) He (and nobody) can decide to get rid of perfectly contructive articles and all the rest - you just don't have that power on here and you must stop acting like you're fighting for the greater good of Wikipedia, because you're just not. Officially Mr X (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree on doing away with the colors. Add a column to the chart to denote the engine formula instead.  Move the Lights category to a separate chart so that 1) There's not so much blank space and 2) There's room enough on the chart to add the engine formula and 3) There's no need to put links to the specific Lights season in parenthesis.  IIIVIX  ( Talk ) 22:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also, I don't see the advantage of having the series name in having a particular year centered. And while Mr X brings up the World Series by Renault tables as an example, I'd like to ask where he came up with the teams champion titles in Euro 3000 prior to 2005. I wasn't aware there was one. --Pc13 (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair points indeed. Being centered certainly isn't critical and the background colours should go: I've simply stated the year(s) to which the colours would apply below the table. Rightly or wrongly, I sourced the team champions for Euro Formula 3000 from Speedsport Magazine (which appears to be highly accurate) in all the relevant seasons pages. Officially Mr X (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Caracciola
I've been working on Rudolf Caracciola for a while, and I want to get the article onto the main page for the 28th of September this year (the 50th anniversary of his death). I want to get as many eyes onto it as possible before I take it to FAC. Please consider taking a look at it and leaving comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport/History of Motorsport. Thanks. Aptery gial  08:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Owen Maddock's obit
Hey y'all. Inspired by Apterygial's meisterwerk on Rudi C. I am trying to get my nacent Owen Maddock up to the stage where I'd be happy to sling it into the maelstrom of mainspace. However... I am hamstrung by the disappearance of one of my most important sources. Doug Nye wrote a superb, lengthy obituary for The Beard in The Independent and, until recently, this was available for reading online. As you may guess, this is no longer the case. You can still get to it through a "free" subscription trial to a pay site but I am very reluctant to submit my credit card details to an unknown website and trust that they will behave well. So, has anyone got a copy please? Any format welcome be it pristine .pdf or low-res scan of a tatty clipping. Alternatively, has anyone any idea how I (based in Canada) can get access to the back issues of The Indy (based in the UK) without it costing me a fortune? Any help offered will be met with, frankly, embarassingly high levels of gratitude. Happy editing all.  Pyrop e  15:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Drop me an e-mail through my user page. AlexJ (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that AlexJ, most helpful. Now to incorporate the info...  Pyrop e  19:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

GP2 race reports
Are we doing these? I thought we weren't doing individual race report articles for GP2 races, but someone's just written a bunch, 2009 British GP2 Race for example. Just a heads up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As with most things if he wants to do it, let him do it and do it well. Chill before panicking into deleting something else. However I did notice that he's not been terribly accurate so far (with driver names and such e.g. spelling Nico Hulkenberg wrongly), so perhaps this venture may not work: wait and see. Officially Mr X (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it pretty much depends on notability, rather than whether it's any good or not. Even so, I'm quite chilled, and I've never panicked or deleted anything in my life. I'm just putting it out there. Point taken on the accuracy though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * GP2 is in effect, a support category. It's claim to notability isn't their own, but that they hang on the coat-tails of Formula 1. I think that on that basis notability is difficult to justify. Some of the links are wrong I note, ART for example. Also the name of the report itself doesn't sound right. British Race? Is that GP2's in house term? --Falcadore (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's definition of notability is 'significant coverage in multiple independent sources', and with such notability being demonstrated by referencing in the article itself. I think GP2 races could fairly easily be proven as notable (Autosport and Yahoo-Eurosport for example both do race reports) The question is, whether anyone is willing to write such articles to a standard beyond that of a mere results table. If not, then the article doesn't prove it's notable and is likely to face deletion. AlexJ (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While I could care less about GP2 in itself, Alex is right that the topic meets WP's notability criteria, and provided it's written reasonably well there's no reason for it to be deleted. Ah, for the days when we had multiple F2 and F3 championships with many constructors and engine suppliers in each.... ;-) 4u1e (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that. We have, for example, hundreds of Championship F1 races which are nothing but a results table (I know, I added an F1GP template to most of them), but that doesn't mean they're not going to be expanded eventually. If they have sources on the article that prove they are notable, regardless of whether they are used to an extent full enough to make a decent article, then that article is notable. On a related note, is everyone having the same problem with that Silverstone track map as me? I can't see much except a few faint lines, and it appears to be happening over a lot of pages where the image is embedded. Aptery  gial  22:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just playing devil's advocate, but if these are notable now, why weren't they notable when similar articles started by the same author were deleted a while ago? And similarly, World Series by Renault / F2 race reports etc, which are also covered significantly in multiple independent sources? Where does it end? As I say, I don't mind if this stuff is kept or not, but it's an important point, I think. Agreed on the Silverstone map though - can't see a lot there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Link to previous deletion - Articles for deletion/2009 Spainsh GP2 Race Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They weren't notable because no proof of notability was provided. It's not good enough to say "there's an article in Autosport about this", an article needs to demonstrate it's notable by a) being written to a high enough standard to provide context to the event and b) the writing being supported by references. With the F1 articles, we can just about argue keeping them by saying there are articles about other races that are of the same importance, prestige etc. that are at FA level so it's likely that the same could be done with the start-class articles. No-one has yet proven that this is possible with GP2/F2/WSbR etc. so that argument can't be used. AlexJ (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So theoretically, providing notability is established via references and the article reaches a high enough level, then an article can be created on any of an extremely large number of lower formula races? The possibilities are... scary! Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if someone is prepared to do the work. And if the articles are left delinguent for some period of time without being expanded and referenced sufficiently because the relelvant authors move on to the next race report, then notability failure remains possible, essentially because notability hasn't been sufficiently demonstrated. The impetus is effectively within the starting author then as I understand it yes? --Falcadore (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:PAPER - "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content...articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies." AlexJ (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Away from all the side arguments the most crucial thing is that they still aren't up to standard and the ones I looked at don't even have results posted for both races: A1 Grand Prix and Superleague Formula race pages should be looked at for reference of series that have 2 races per round. Officially Mr X (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WTCC Race Reports
I am starting to work through this season's World Touring Car Championship race reports following this discussion. I am working through and creating them backwards, from the most recent round, which may seem strange but that's just the way I've done it. The most complete one is 2009 FIA WTCC Race of UK, which is complete in my view, although I would appreciate it if somebody who works on the Formula One reports or similar could have a look at it and suggest or make improvements if required. I would also much appreciate if people could just help to expand or create older reports themselves, including past seasons, as I do not have the time or the patience to do it all myself. Thanks mspete93   [talk]  18:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would add the car/constructor field, im not personally intrested about team names, dont know what others think? --Typ932 T&middot;C 18:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wondered about that. mspete93   [talk]  19:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Team names are fairly important to have IMO. A wider pool of references would be good to have. Is there more that can be said about the races themselves? AlexJ (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to add more to the articles. I know that using just one reference sources isn't such a good idea, it's just that I personally like using autosport.com as a news source but I'm sure that you all have your own. Besides, the articles will be much better if they are made by different people rather than just me all the time. I was a bit stuck when it came to talking about race 2 at Brands as not much really happened. mspete93   [talk]  20:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Team names can be important, but in generally people are more intrested "what car" win, so I would add car brands aswell --Typ932 T&middot;C 05:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd definitely add the car manufacturer to the tables. By the way, it's not really called the "Race of UK" is it? No-one says "I'm from UK" or "UK has won the 2012 Olympic medals table", it's always the UK. Of course, if that really is what it was called, we shouldn't change it just to keep me happy... 4u1e (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that be "Race of Great Britain"? We need the entrant name here. WTCC isn't F1 and manufacturer is not the same as team. --Pc13 (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that it was daft but the WTCC do call it the Race of UK (see this picture). Would we want the manufacturer (i.e. BMW, SEAT) or the full car name? mspete93   [talk]  11:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with past results is retirement reasons. I can use my memory but I can't remember everything so if people know the reasons please could you add them where they are blank. mspete93   [talk]  12:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Small problem with infobox
I have created Template:Infobox WTCC race by copying Template:F1 race, and then changing bits. However, if you look at Template:Infobox WTCC race you will see there is a problem, with . Hopefully that should fix it. DH85868993 (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I obviously deleted one too many '}}' when I was changing the information at the bottom. mspete93   [talk]  14:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Superleague Formula lists
I've noticed User:Officially Mr X has been creating a lot of different statistics pages for Superleague Formula. Are all of these really necessary? If we are to have a statistical supplement to Superleague Formula, isn't it better to merge some of these and tone down on the variety of number combinations they have? --Pc13 (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * List of Superleague Formula records
 * List of Superleague Formula football clubs
 * List of Superleague Formula drivers and teams
 * List of Superleague Formula circuits
 * Leave him be. If a user is happy to spend time on such a project then let them. There are probably some refinements that could be made but otherwise its good. I myself am embarking on a similar project for the WTCC (see my user page for more details). - mspete93   [talk]  18:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As we've stopped this user from adding rumours to the 2010 F1 page it's only fair we let him carry on here. Although they may not seem necessary half way through the second season, they may well become more useful in the future. - mspete93   [talk]  18:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As we've stopped this user from adding rumours to the 2010 F1 page it's only fair we let him carry on here, frankly that's a ridiculous statement. Getting a consolation prize because some edittors are actually enforcing the guidelines? When you sign on to contribute to Wikipedia, you are agreeing to do so within those guidelines. That is what is defined as being fair. If Officially Mr. X wants to create an enormous statistics database and publish every rumour he/she likes then they can create their own website and do it there. Mr.X, you and me and every other edittor agreed to contribute to Wikipedia according to its own rules, policies and guidelines. That is what is fair. --Falcadore (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not about the harm, it's about the precedent. This is not a terribly notable category to begin with, stats saturation isn't neccessarily a good thing. Merge definitly, either into the main article, into a lists article, or delete them completely. --Falcadore (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon second look, this looks like it may be Original Research and may be AfD'ed on that basis. --Falcadore (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair point on the notability I guess. Just to check - you won't get rid of this list when I finish it will you? In fact, all I'm doing is just improving the currently very poor List of World Touring Car Championship drivers - mspete93   [talk]  22:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Me? Probably not, no, but a word of warning, or adivce if you like, if you are compiling those statistics yourself, and not sourcing them from somewhere else, than that is against No Original Research Policy. Wikipedia is not the place to self-publish your own essays and that includes statistics. --Falcadore (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge
There is a merge request between Car sprint and sprint car racing. Please assess the situation and comment in the discussion area.  Royal broil  12:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Caracciola FAC
Could I please get some comments on Rudi at Featured article candidates/Rudolf Caracciola/archive1? It's been five days and there hasn't been a lot. Doesn't matter if what you have to say is good or bad, so long as it's constructive. Aptery gial  12:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Flags in articles
I am bringing to this Wikiproject three proposals for the use of Flags in articles. The first propsal is for the removal of all flags as per WP:ICONDECORATION. The second proposal is to use the flag of the host country, for example the San Marino Grand Prix would use the Italian Flag and the European Grand Prix would use the German or Spanish Flag. The third proposal is to use the flag where possible of the name of the race eg the European Grand Prix would use the European Flag, the Luxembourg Grand Prix would use the Luxembourg Flag and the Indanapolis MotoGP would use the flag of Indiana. This is discussion is a fresh start and asumes there is no current concensus on the issue. This discussion should also be based on the merit of arguments and not on sheer numbers or voting. Please leave input on this discussion below. --Lucy-marie (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would we assume there's no current consensus when there in fact is one? And since when has any consensus regarding flags been based on voting?  IIIVIX  ( Talk ) 22:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This is intended as a fresh discussion to try and settle this issue as previous discussions, particulally on the Formual One wikiproject, have descended into voting and have ended with threats and been less than amicable. I am simply re-stating wiki policy on civility for the benefit of users from previous discussions. The scope here is also wider than previous discussions and aims to try and standardise flag use accross all motorsports articles rather than having one policy for Formula One and one policy for MotoGP.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Voting and threats? What the hell?  What a crazy accusation to make.  This really seems a lot like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.  IIIVIX  ( Talk ) 22:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we please not get into talking about individual users here and can we discuss the topic. If you wish to talk to an individual user please do so on thier own user talk page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm discussing the fact that you're bringing it up again. Yes some continuity amongst projects might be helpful, but claiming that we should ignore prior consensuses is just foolish and seems to be furthering a personal objective rather than a constructive discussion.  IIIVIX  ( Talk ) 23:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am simply stating start a fresh rather than have no discussion because some people think there is allready a result to the discussion. If the discussion is opened and it is entered into as if there is currently no concensus (which is what I would strongy argue), then maybe some real progress can be made on the issue. Rather than users simply staing there is alllready a concensus and there for because of this this and this nothing can change, so lets enter with an open mind on this issue.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to ignore multiple-versions of consensus reaching. Do you have something new to bring to the discussion? That would certainly make it worthy of re-opening. --Falcadore (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think something that could possibly be added to the arguement is about the point, at least amongst F1, that the European flag is not used by the FIA or FOM to denote the European Grand Prix. However, I would point out that the European flag is indeed used for the FIA GT3 European Championship to denote the series as European, even though it does not hold all of its races in Europe (one event in Dubai).  The logo would be the work of the SRO Group and not the FIA, but the FIA does display it on their website.  The SRO's GT4 European Cup also utilizes the European flag's star pattern, although not the blue color.  It is a strictly European series however, but not an FIA series.


 * The European F3 Open Championship also displays the European flag on their main logo, although all of their races are actually in Europe. Further, the International GT Open does not have the European flag on their logo, but all of the cars features a windshield banner with the European flag (see image).  Although they claim to be an "International" series, all of their races are again in Europe.  Both the Euro F3 Open and Intl GT Open are owned by the GT Sport organisation, not related to the SRO Group, and are not FIA series.   IIIVIX  ( Talk ) 00:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And we're off to the races... --Falcadore (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You asked for something new... IIIVIX  ( Talk ) 02:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those cases are not applicable. We're talking about series logos and car decoration, not calendars. We could use the Council of Europe flag for a pan-European series, but then what would use for a North-American or Asian series? Do you really need a regional or national flag for championship infoboxes? In addition, outside F1 and WRC events don't usually use a country denominator, so the point is moot, the flag would always be for the country the event took place in. So if the question is "what flag should I use for the European Grand Prix?", it's a case of which ASN authorizes it. --Pc13 (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My point was simply that Europe seems to be a somewhat special case. The previous arguement for not using the European flag was that the race was not representing the European Union or any such transnational entity.  I agree that in 99% of cases the specific country flag should be used.  However, as you point out, this entire argument about flags really is stuck on the European Grand Prix.  And as these examples show, although they not only do not represent the European Union nor do they even solely take place within European Union countries, the flag of the European Union does seem to be a unique case that can be used to represent more than just the Union.  Simply the number of random users who continually alter the icon to the EU flag rather than the Spanish/British/Germany/whatever flag seems to indicate to me that this flag is synonymous with Europe and the European GP.


 * If we are to use the specific country from which a race takes place or is named after, is the Macau Grand Prix not another special case? Should we not use the PRC flag since that is technically the country?  This would have an affect on our WTCC articles.  IIIVIX  ( Talk ) 09:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The WTCC never mentions China with regards to the Race of Macau. The Mecanese flag (🇲🇴) and the nation of Macau is always used, even when referring to local drivers like Andre Couto. My personal view is that even if cannot be used for Europe, the San Marino and Luxembourg races have to be represented by their own flags, 🇸🇲 and 🇱🇺. It is misleading in these cases to use the flag of the host nation. And as for your point that 'the European flag is not used by the FIA or FOM to denote the European Grand Prix' - I'm sure that in the TV coverage just before the race when they show the circuit they have the European flag behind. Have a look this weekend. Here is an example of the FIA using it. -  mspete93   [talk]  10:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well my point about Macau is that it is part of China, but we use the Macau flag because of its special status. In terms of the European flag, I believe the purpose of flags is for somewhat easier recognition, and where we are using this flag is in connection with the Grands Prix.  And I think it's fairly clear that the intent here is to make it easily recognizable as the European Grand Prix, not the Grand Prix of Brands Hatch or Nurburgring or Valencia or whatever.  If the FIA's website even uses the EU flag for easy recognition as a symbol of this event, why can't we use that same flag on Wikipedia?  IIIVIX  ( Talk ) 11:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I had agreed with another user to stay out of this discussion, but I must make one brief point given that the discussion seems to be moving in a new direction, then I shall stay quiet. Initially we were discussing use of flags for races, not for series or championships. This is stretching the use of flag icons too far in my view. The MOS implies quite strongly that flags are basically to be used for participating sportspeople, not for anything else. I believe that flag icons are superfluous when used for series, championships and races. We do not need to make the European Grand Prix "more recognisable" when the word European is right there for all to see, next to the flag. We should also remember that it is actually irrelevant which other entities or news groups use flags - it is not our job to copy others. I think that our failure up to this point to agree on which flags to use offers an opportunity to limit the use of flags to participants, thus removing the current problem altogether, possibly the only way it will actually come to an end. I also believe that the idea of establishing a flag policy across all forms of motorsport is nothing short of dreamland. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not endorsing flags for championships, I was simply using championships as examples. I too however think that removing flags from events is in the best interest of everyone.  We already have a growing number of articles on smaller national series where state flags are beginning to be used, which from my understanding is even more harshly criticized by the MOS.  IIIVIX  ( Talk ) 21:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's time we settled this. We're should strive for a consensus on this here, and then this whole string of discussions can be laid to rest. I had agreed to stay out of it this time, but I've apparently been somewhat misled. We have three proposals as clearly laid out by Lucy-Marie at the top there, and we should settle on one, or ask others to come in and help via the dispute resolution process. I invite anyone and everyone to state their preferences, with as good an explanation as they can give, and refrain from ripping into other people's reasoning. Let's just each state our position and see where we stand. Lucy-Marie has said this should not be decided by numbers, but by the "merit of argument". This implies (and she may well correct me on this) that one "good" argument can outweigh several other editors' "poor" arguments. I don't think Wikipedia works like that, and besides, I would like to see who thinks what. If a consensus emerges, I think we should all agree to stick with it, and work with it. There's too much work to do on motorsport articles on Wikipedia without being dragged into this relative trivia every couple of weeks. For the information and interest of all concerned, the relevant discussion that was initiated by User:D.M.N. on the admin board some time ago, and which I asked for (but wasn't shown) in the previous discussion is here. The discussion here is open-ended, i.e. if it goes quiet for a few days, it should not be seen as "dead" or "failed" and yet another discussion started somewhere else. I also think it would be very prudent for everyone not to make changes to flags until we get somewhere here. I am not trying to push my POV or take over the discussion, I am trying to push Lucy-Marie's initial request for clarity and consensus.

For my 2p worth, I would like to see either: flags to be used to emphasise the host nation or: no flags for events at all. This is because the flag has to be seen to be adding information. Using the flag of the name of the event, e.g. the European Union flag for the European GP, adds nothing but decoration. This is clear in the MOS. I'll be happy with either of these two proposals, but not the third one Lucy-Marie mentioned, in which the "race name flag" is used. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is my opinion also, host or neither. European Grand Prix has been a flag of convenience, a name tag to use so F1 could capitalise on the thouasands of addition Mansell-fans for a race at Brands Hatch... Prost-fans at Dijon, Schumacher-fans at the Nurburgring et al. There has never been a connection to an actual pan-European body. Ditto San Marino, the track is not in San Marino and never has been and its misleading to suggest that San Marino actually has motor racing facilities at all, etc etc..., this solution works equally as well for events like Pau, Pescara, Syracuse, Solitude, and other non-National named Grands Prix and races, in which case flag can actually become informative.
 * None works for me if flags are to be considered persona non gratia. --Falcadore (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I normally stay out of these discussions which take up far too much of the energies of the project. Hopefully we can kill this off here and not keep re-visiting it. My view is that we should only use flags as a convenient and compact way of getting across information about the official nationality of teams and drivers, as laid out in the rules of the sport, and that's all. They should not be used for the nationality of team members because these have no particular relevance to the sport, and should not be used for the locations of teams, because that information is better given by apecifying the actual town, city or whatever. For races -by Wikipedia rules - I think they're just decoration: we normally also spell out the location of the race and the 'host' name is part of the title. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My preference would be to use for the European GP, mainly because there is clearly not an issue with using the European Union flag even if the event has nothing to do with the EU - it has become a widely accepted flag of Europe. I also feel that using the flag of the host nation for Grand Prix where a country other than the host is in the name (e.g. San Marino) is simply confusing and misleading. Therefore I would use 🇸🇲 because it is the Grand Prix of San Marino, even if it is held in Italy. In my opinion the location of the circuit is not as important as the title of the race in this instance. -  mspete93   [talk]  11:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My preference matches 4u1e's, i.e. use flags to indicate the nationality of teams and drivers, but no flags for team locations, team members or races. And it wouldn't worry me if we didn't even use them for teams and drivers. DH85868993 (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * MPete93: By that logic, you also then support Pacific, Indiana and some sort of invented Pescara flags for those Grands Prix as well? --Falcadore (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No I don't. Pacific can use 🇯🇵 and as for the others, they are all sub-national I'm guessing (excuse my ignorance with anything pre-1990's) so they can use the flag of the nation, be it USA or Italy or whatever. All I meant is that where the Grand Prix takes the name of a nation (e.g. San Marino or Luxembourg) they should have those flags rather than the flag of the host nation because I think that 🇮🇹 San Marino and 🇩🇪 Luxembourg looks misleading. In fact take a look at List of Formula One Grand Prix. That is exactly how I would show them. I feel that is the common sense approach. - mspete93   [talk]  14:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to be clear that you wanted to be selective under your own set of criteria. --Falcadore (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My 2p/2c/2¥: I personally find flagicons useful as icons. Easily-identifiable tags that aid navigation in lists and tables, where unadorned text just blurs into one another if I'm scanning for a specific event. From this point of view the most useful approach is to have a flag that represents the title of the grand prix. However, I think this should stop at a national level in most international series. I don't know what to do about the Pacific races, as the flag of the Pacific community isn't widely recognised and, to the best of my knowledge has never been used by the official sources. On the other hand I see nothing wrong with using the EU flag for European races. This flag had gained wide recognition (e.g. here in Canada some TV news does occasionally use it just to set the scene for general European stories, even where they don't concern the official governmental body) and has been used by official sources. For non-C races, these are essentially national events and should carry the national flag. As FIA World Championships have been running for quite a while there will always be anomalies thrown up that we should deal with on an individual basis (e.g. Pescara), and using these as arguments to determine policy in all cases is both absurd and detrimental. Make of that what you will.  Pyrop e  14:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say I was being that selective really. Besides, I just stumbled across that list as it is now. I didn't make any changes to it. - mspete93   [talk]  15:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been asked for a comment on this. I've not read all the discussion bu my view is that the flag should be that of the country where the race takes place. Not the continent, state, region or town.
 * If we're going to insist on the flag of the host country could we move the flags so that they are in the 'location' column? - mspete93   [talk]  18:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're going to insist on anything, it would be nice to reach a point where everyone's satisfied, but yes - I think that would be a better idea. Some motorsport tables are already set out like that - see 2009 Speedway Grand Prix. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah - they've done that to avoid the Europe, Scandanavia and Nordic problems, similar to the problems we've got. I was beginning to feel outnumbered with my proposal. Would it better to put them in the 'circuit' column, as it comes before the 'city/location' column, seeing as there are no disputes over the circuit location? Here is the F1 table in this form:

- mspete93   [talk]  19:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

See, I like that a lot. I think it looks good, the flags actually add something and there's no ambiguity that can end in arguments. I'm 100% for this idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Further to my comment above, although I'd prefer to leave the flags out of this table altogether, I'm happy to live with that solution if everyone else is; as Breton says, in this configuration they are adding information. 4u1e (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it to, although I find the number of laps a curious and, without knowing the length of the circuit, pointless addition. Remove the laps and a tick from me. --Falcadore (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a point, I didn't notice that. Seems unnecessary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably the times are all a bit provisional at the moment as well? We should remove these because you know how Bernie likes to fiddle. He changed the Malaysian date at short notice this year and recently he changed it again for next year. - mspete93   [talk]  22:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry - thinking about 2010 already! - mspete93   [talk]  15:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Below is what the table would look like if the flags were omitted

In my opinion the table looks very bland and the races are harder to distimguish from each other. I think the flags give a level of ease of navigability and help break up large blocks of text.--Lucy-marie (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that I personally favour the use of the Europpean flag in the table over other flags as an outside user who is unfamiliar and browsing casually from season to season would have an easier time identifying the races rather than seeing two spanish flgs or two british flags or two german flags and needing a decoder ring to work out why there "appears" to be two races for one country when the FIA rules prohibit this.--Lucy-marie (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The flaw in your arguement there is why assume the preverbial outsider knows there is a prohibition on more than one F1 race in a country, especially as this has been flouted every year since 1980. --Falcadore (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is though misleading having the name of the race as one thing and a flag representing the race being something diffrent.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you watch the recent film The Italian Job - the remake? Did you find the name misleading as it is not actually set in Italy? Do you find it misleading that no-one from Jordan Grand Prix was actually Jordanian? It's a name. That's all it is. Motor races have lots of names. Accuracy should be more important than perpetuating myths, like for example, the myth that there is any motorsport held at all in San Marino. --Falcadore (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Jordan Formula One team is named after the team owner Eddie Jordan and not the midle eastern state so the name is not misleading as Jordan is a common surname and christian name. I would liek to clarify is your position to exclusivly use the host flag, for example use the Italian flag for the San Marino rand Prix.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And if I can add as an aside, you say the table looks bland. A table is not, is not ever, a reason to add colour to an article. If you think an article looks 'bland', then add an image. Do not try to get a table to do something it is not supposed to. Tables are there to tabulate information into a handier visual tool and most certainly not to add a splash of colour. I think some of the fundamentals are slipping you by here. --Falcadore (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Fundamentals are in question here as to the use of the flags in motorsports articles. Also the flags in my opinion add an ease of distinguishability in searching for specific races.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec, interrupted by phone call) I understand why you are saying that, Lucy-Marie. If the flag was to appear after the city/location name, it would be clear. The flags may be placed before the city for neatness. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this as a compromise:

IMO there's no reason to have the UAE flag for the Abu Dhabi GP. The Europe/Spain flag works though. Mjroots (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gone cold, don't like it now. I really want to know why the Europe flag is there, its just unrepresentative (the only word it's representing is the word Europe in the races name, and I think the word Europe is obvious enough). And please, lose the laps column. --Falcadore (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Does anyone actually have a problem with the first table? The second table is not good as it leaves you searching for the race you want. The third table looks messy and the fourth just looks daft. And don't worry - the laps and times can be removed when we get to changing the articles. - mspete93   [talk]  11:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with the first table, but wonder whether the flags shoud be in the next column as per 3rd table, but maybe before the location instead of after. Mjroots (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd also go with the first of those proposed tables as the best compromise position. We don't need location as well as circuit details, as the circuit is the location!  Pyrop e  13:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the location details are important because the race is often referred to by the location e.g. Barcelona, Melbourne, Sao Paulo, Budapest, Kuala Lumpar - mspete93   [talk]  15:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I also think the first table is the best of those shown here. In fact, I think it's the only one that works properly. Not so keen on the flagless table now that I see one in the raw, the third one looks messy with the flags not in a row, and the fourth looks decidedly odd with just two flags (ripe for passing editors just to go adding more flags). I just don't buy the argument that the European GP is hard to find. If an editor can read, he can see the word "European" and he's found it. With regard to the location column - in a lot of cases, it's redundant e.g. Melbourne - Melbourne, Shanghai - Shanghai, Istanbul Park - Istanbul, Silverstone Circuit - Silverstone, Monza, Suzuka, Valencia etc etc. We could perhaps junk the city/location column and just add a city next to the circuit in cases where there may be some doubt, i.e.:

(Table 5) -Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree that my example looked messy with flags at end. So, with flags at beginning it looks like this:-

After seeing the Menu of tables on offer, I favour table five, as it adds a distinguishability and removes the controversy surrounding the titles of the races. It also slims down the table without removing any real information within the table. The table was getting too wide and table five is a good compromise.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Does anyone disagree? I'd like to just get on with this, to be honest. If anyone objects to table 5, then speak now or forever hold your peace etc etc. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was about to ask a similar question. I prefer table 1 but I'm okay with 5. - mspete93   [talk]  16:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 OK with me. 4u1e (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 is also OK with me. Cs-wolves  (talk)  19:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet more table bloating
Over here at 2005 GP2 Series season there is another example of loading up tables with data that really does not belong there. User:Cybervoron has decided the season calendar needs data about fastest lap and pole position. Surely results belong in the results section and not in the calendar section? Surely the definition is very plain? --Falcadore (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If this not for displaying the results, why you are don't delete winners? And i was talk about this tables 2009 Formula One season(pole positions, fastest laps, reports), 2009 World Touring Car Championship season(reports), 2009 Formula Three Euroseries season(pole positions & fastest laps), 2009 Euroseries 3000 season (pole positions & fastest laps), 2009 FIA Formula Two Championship season(pole positions & fastest laps), 2009 Superleague Formula season(pole positions & fastest laps), etc. Cybervoron (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleting the winners is not a bad idea. But loading up calendars with non-calendar information is just against what the word calendar means. Firstly the Formula One example is not valid because the fastest laps and pole position data is not placed within the calendar table but is placed within another table specific to the purpose. All the others are 2009 season and thus are likely recent additions much like this is. And just because these other 2009 articles have this data does not make them correct also.
 * As far as I can see it's quite simple, results belong in th eresults section and do not belong bloating up the calendar.
 * Is it wrong of me to believe that tables should not be weighed down with additional data for the sake of it? Especially when I note that in these instances through the usage of bolding and italics, fastest lap and pole position information is already indicated in the drivers stnadings tables? It is literally unneccessary duplication. --Falcadore (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Falcadore: it is not unnecessary and certainly doesn't make the article any worse - how can more information that is useful and interesting to the article reader be a bad thing? You do not make sense to me, yet again. Officially Mr X (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's duplication. This information already appears elsewhere. How many tables do we need to display the same information? It is also not relevant to the table itself. Calendar. What has the fastest lap have anything to do with the calendar? I mean we could put the name of the guy who waved the chequered flag at each race, it would be increased information but would it have anything to do with the calendar? --Falcadore (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)