![]() | Formula One Project‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Hi, I strongly recommed this project to give your notabilty guidelines for a new notabilty proposal that I'm creating on my userpage, once it is completed, I will move to wikipedia namespace for the community to decide. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Terrible headline, but Hans Ruesch raced in grand prixs before F1's formation. Should he get the "Former motorsports driver" template on his page? Guroadrunner 09:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm planning to propose Renault RS27 for deletion. Any objections? DH85868993 15:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Because of this. I'm unhappy with the decision. Sorry if this comes accross as stubborn, but I'm rather annoyed right about now. Davnel03 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a point I have raised with Davnel03 before. Too many articles are being rushed to FAC. Most of them in a very poor condition to be generous. Mark83 23:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Davnel, your attitude here is a bit much. It's a good well referenced article, but it's not 'brilliant'. The article failed because no-one felt it was good enough to support. Before the restart it was 2 Support and 4 Oppose and after the restart there were no supports. One of the supporters added some issues with the article after the restart perhaps because of your slightly aggressive comments towards him. In fact I think part of the fail was due to your attitude during the FAC process - it's no good getting all defensive and hostile when someone comments, you've got to grit your teeth and do everything you can to accommodate their suggestions. They are the only ones who can decide when they believe their concerns have been addressed so my suggestion would be to stop using Done after each comment. Instead state what you've done to address their concerns and word it so you're inviting them to say if they think it's a good enough solution. Go easy on the WP:F1 references. Wikiprojects support articles, but don't own them or dictate how things are done. Wikipedia's editors that do that. The best thing to do is show (via a link) where consensus was reached on doing something a certain way. This carries more weight than saying "WP:F1 do things this way" and is more likely to be satisfactory to the reviewer. Finally (and it's been said many times before) don't go straight to FAC/GAC. Have someone copyedit the article first. Every minor niggle picked up at this stage is one less thing for the article to be flagged up on. For a FAC, I'd recommend running it through a PR first as well (again everything picked up here is one less thing to object to at FAC). I'll leave some comments at the PR now it's up and running (yes I do have some). AlexJ 10:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Hill (constructor) was recently moved to Embassy Hill with an explanation of "per Google results". What do people think of this change? How intrinsic was "Embassy" to the team? Or was it just a sponsor? Should the name of the article be reverted to Hill (constructor)? (or something else, e.g. Hill (Formula One) or Hill (auto racing) or Hill (racing team))? DH85868993 11:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
To spur off on this, Hill drove for the Embassy Hill team, but in his results table, it says he raced for Shadow in 1973 and then Lola in 1974/75. This directly contrasts with how we do it now (full team name, and sponsor – i.e. Benson & Hedges Jordan-Ford). Should it be changed to Embassy Hill Racing for those entries ? Guroadrunner 03:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I've plopped the table in, and also expanded Embassy Hill (or, Hill (constructor) ) . The table still needs work to get all of the seasons combined, though (when you see it you'll know what I mean). Thanks to Pyrope for helping work on the table. Guroadrunner 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_September_17#Image:Francois_cevert.jpg
This is an image added by R. Dikeman, who sometimes has put up his own racing images released into free licenses.
It also is the only image of Cevert's face on the page – and fits into fair use because he is dead.
Which table is the easier to read version in your opinion and not the technically superior version
REMOVED THE SCHUMI RESULTS TABLE – NEED TO ARCHIVE PAGE Guroadrunner 07:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, the peer review for the 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix has ended. Firstly, many, many thanks to the people that put comments on the PR (Pyrope, RoyalBroil, Alex etc.). The article is currently in the middle of a "look-over" by Awadewit, so thanks to him for doing that. So, you might be trying to guess what's next? Yes, you probably know the next thing which I'm going to write. But, before I head there (yes FA), I was wondering whether anyone could, like what's recently been going on with Brabham BT19, put any in-depth comments on the talkpage, to try and help me improve the article. I'm probably not going to nominate it again for FA until the New Year as a whole load of yearbooks and stuff like that come out round Christmas (one of which I'll be buying), so hopefully I can also improve the article using that. :) Davnel03 18:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Found photos of this car on Flickr under Creative Commons, on display at the Japanese Grand Prix. A Mario Andretti John Player Special Lotus, there are a few nice shots of it. Figured I'd get positive identification before I uploaded them. No shots of the car in the background (F2/F3?) unfortunately. The359 01:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
There are numerous race report articles which have the fastest lap details listed in both the infobox and the Notes section near the end of the article. The only thing that has stopped me removing the details from the Notes section (i.e. as "duplicate information") is the fact that the Notes section specifies the average speed of the fastest lap, which isn't listed in the infobox. How should we handle this? Do we care about the average speed of the fastest lap? Should we add it to the infobox (as an optional field)? Thoughts? DH85868993 05:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
According to the 1955 Formula One season article, four events were cancelled after the 1955 Le Mans disaster. I was wondering if anyone had any information on which four races were cancelled, since it would be noteworthy for the article. I assume the Swiss Grand Prix, French Grand Prix, and German Grand Prix were three of the races, but I have no verification at the moment. The359 00:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
can we try to move up senna to mfeatured status???-- hello????? 12:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on the 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix at the moment, with a view to making it an example of how to do a featured race article for a non-controversial event (insofar as it's difficult to use 2005 United States Grand Prix or 1994 San Marino Grand Prix as examples). This is the first time that I've taken a front seat on copy-editing an actual race article, and I'm in a little bit of a dilemma.
I believe the current MoS policy is that driver's full names should only be used at the first occurance in the article. However, I think the article would be more readable if this rule was adapted slightly; in the race section one duplication should be allowed for readability purposes (N.B. I'm not proposing a driver is wikilinked twice, just that his full name is allowed to be used once more). I thought the best course of action was to ask here, rather than on the article's talk page, as any decision should be applied consistently (unless of course the outcome is for the editor to decide in each case ;) ). BeL1EveR 23:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of making a change for the infoboxes in race articles. Instead of having the circuit map in the infobox, couldn't we have the promotional poster for the race in the infobox (note, all promotional posters are on StatsF1)? Opinions? Davnel03 09:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
User:David Gerard has been adding the "no free image - do you own one?" image ([Image:Replace this image male.svg]) to lots of biography articles which don't currently have images. Of the F1 driver articles, so far he's hit Kenny Acheson and Philippe Alliot. I'm assuming that in the fullness of time, he will hit more. A couple of questions:
Thoughts? DH85868993 04:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
For those interested, it appears that a Mercedes employee vandalised the article, and the company has started an investigation. And I thought the silly season was over...-- Diniz ( talk) 18:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I know this is a bit non-Encyclopedic, but I figured some people would like this. A website which allows you to play out every possible Championship outcome based on the results in Brazil. Linky. What's amazing is that some ties in points in the championship could result in a tie-breaker of who has the most 5th place finishes over the season! The359 21:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know when drivers who had been classified in races but did not score points began to be included in the WDC standings? They were not at first, and they are now, so when did it change? FORIX is down, so I can't check. Someone is editing driver articles to show that if a driver finished 16th or something in a race in 1958, he was classified in the WDC, which isn't true. All the WDC articles for each year also need to reflect this, as we should show the standings as they were listed at the time, not as they would be lsited now under today's conventions. Bretonbanquet 17:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, are we showing drivers who were not listed in the WDC standings as "NC" or are we just leaving a dash? For example, Winkelhock this year. My understanding is that a driver isn't "Not classified", rather he just isn't on the list, in which case "NC" is not appropriate. You can be "NC" in a race, but not a Championship. Am I right or wrong? Does anyone care? Bretonbanquet 17:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
After a thorough peer review and a copy-edit, I have opted to nominate 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix for FA status for a second time. This is almost certainly the route I should of taken before. I will learn from my mistake here in the future. Instead of going straight from GA to FAC, I will head to PR in between. Anyway, the FAC discussion is here. Thanks, Davnel03 08:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that in recent MotoGP seasons, wet races were marked in the table with the light blue background, like here in 2006 table. Opinions, could we do the same in F1? I can find list of wet races so that's not a problem. BleuDXXXIV 18:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I just happened across the Venezuelan Grand Prix article. I know there were various Venezuelan GPs for sports cars and I think for bikes, but this seems to be about a future F1 event. Anyone heard of it? Google suggests not. 4u1e 16:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a fair enough article, but only as an article about the circuit. There is no Venezuelan Grand Prix, yet, or indeed, there may well never be one. Retitle it after the circuit and get rid of the POV, it's fair enough, I think. Bretonbanquet 18:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Just confirmed. Do we create a new page for Force India as it's a seperate name, or do we just move the Spyker page to Force India? At the moment, I've put Force India F1 redirecting to Spyker F1, but shouldn't it be a completely seperate page? Davnel03 15:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Pyrope. Since the name is not official yet, a redirect to Spyker F1 is the best option. When the name becomes official, Force India should become a separate article. The article Spyker F1 outlines the team that was active during the 2007 season, and that was not Force India. The sequence that Pyrope has mentioned for Red Bull and Renault should also apply to this new team: Jordan Grand Prix > Midland F1 Racing > Spyker F1 > <name of new team>. Aec·is·away talk 15:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
During the past 24 hours, KocjoBot has added "sl" interwiki links to a number of F1-related (and non-F1-related) templates. The interwiki links have incorrectly been added into the body of the template, instead of into a <noinclude> clause, which means that the links will be included in any article which transcludes the template. I've asked the bot owner to fix them up. DH85868993 02:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, there,
actually, my question is which Qualifying roles/limitations there were during the 1994 season. Formula1.com says that it was "DNQ" for Roland, in Wikipedia there is a "DNS". At this race, Belmondo did not qualify, but if you say Roland did not start, you say that he did qualify for that race.
I believe that there was the 107 % role (what would fit to the "DNQ" from formula1.com), but is it right? If so, it would've to be changed in several lists. Is there any information here on Wikipedia?
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotterstedt ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I only just noticed the Super License article and this got me thinking, at the time of Ide's little debacle, I recall it being mentioned that it was the first time a license had been revoked. I was wondering if anyone knew whether this was true or false off hand? I have been searching for some kind of source either way and coming up bone dry. Narson 22:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I have created an article for Force India F1 Team, however this is seperate to Spyker F1's article. User:Shellene 24th October 10:06
I just came across {{ Grand Prix Mini Report}} which is used on nine race reports (7 F1 races and 2 pre-F1 GP races). I think it was designed to be used for minor GP races, however in the majority of it's uses, {{ F1 race report infobox}} is the correct infobox. The remaining two races should/could use {{ Infobox Grand Prix race report}} instead (which seems to contain the same fields but in the familiar layout). Before I replace the infoboxes, are there any other reasons I may have missed for {{ Grand Prix Mini Report}} to be saved? AlexJ 09:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
{{Infobox Grand Prix race report |Type = F1 |Country = United Kingdom |Grand Prix = British |Official name = - |Date = July 17 |Year = 1954 |Race_No = 5 |Season_No = 9 |Location = [[Silverstone Circuit]], [[Northamptonshire]] |Course = Permanent racing facility |Course_mi = 0 |Course_km = 0 |Distance_laps = 0 |Distance_mi = 0 |Distance_km = 0 |Weather = - |Pole_Driver = [[Juan Manuel Fangio]] |Pole_Team = [[Mercedes]] |Pole_Time = 1'45 |Pole_Country = Argentina |Fast_Time = 1'50 |Fast_Driver = [[Alberto Ascari]] |Fast_Team = [[Maserati]] |Fast_Country = Italy |Fast_Shared_Driver = [[Jean Behra]] |Fast_Shared_Team = [[Gordini]] |Fast_Shared_Country = France |Fast_Shared_Driver2 = [[Juan Manuel Fangio]] |Fast_Shared_Team2 = [[Mercedes]] |Fast_Shared_Country2 = Argentina |Fast_Shared_Driver3 = [[Jose Froilan Gonzalez]] |Fast_Shared_Team3 = [[Scuderia Ferrari|Ferrari]] |Fast_Shared_Country3 = Argentina |Fast_Shared_Driver4 = [[Mike Hawthorn]] |Fast_Shared_Team4 = [[Scuderia Ferrari|Ferrari]] |Fast_Shared_Country4 = United Kingdom |Fast_Shared_Driver5 = [[Onofre Marimon]] |Fast_Shared_Team5 = [[Maserati]] |Fast_Shared_Country5 = Argentina |First_Driver = [[Jose Froilan Gonzalez]] |First_Team = [[Scuderia Ferrari|Ferrari]] |First_Country = Argentina |Second_Driver = [[Mike Hawthorn]] |Second_Country= United Kingdom |Second_Team = [[Scuderia Ferrari|Ferrari]] |Third_Driver = [[Onofre Marimon]] |Third_Team = [[Maserati]] |Third_Country = Argentina }} Bit of a long one, but please do read at least the first & last paragraph.
Having worked with the three race report infoboxes today ({{ Infobox Grand Prix race report}}, {{ F1 race report infobox}} and {{ EC race report infobox}}, I'm of the opinion that a combined template may be preferable.
Woah, I hear you say. They work perfectly well as they are, you just pick the appropriate one and off you go. However, I believe there are a few flaws in the current setup. From experience, some editors try to adapt the 'wrong' template to their needs, when a more suitable one exists. Someone might, for example, copy-and-paste an instance of {{ Infobox Grand Prix race report}} into a 2000 Formula One race. This will almost work, except for a red link at the top to "2000 Grand Prix Season". Someone comes along later and realises the wrong template is used so switches {{Infobox Grand Prix race report for {{F1 race report infobox - the result is the top line is fixed but there are now other problems.
The flag code for example is done differently in F1 and GP&EC. The former requires the name of the country, the latter two the file name. Other inconsistencies have crept in due to having to maintain three templates, for example Fastest lap & Grid are wikilinked in F1 but not in the other two. Features have also been added to some templates and not others. F1 has the ability to add a scheduled race distance where a race is cut short. The others don't have this, but do have the ability to represent shared drivers and two people having the fastest lap. Despite car sharing occurring in early F1 days, this can't be shown in the F1 template. Having a combined template would mean having just one place to update.
Would a combined template be able to incorporate all the permutations required by the three different types of event? Having tested out a WIP combined template with several different race types here, it does work and with fairly good documentation will be no more difficult to implement than the present templates.
How feasible is it to convert all the current uses of the previous templates to the new usage? All F1 infoboxes (by far the most used of the three) can be converted easily by a Robot find-and-replacing a few parameter names. The other two require a bit of manual input to get them to work (mainly down to the flag problem) but there are less than 50 of these in use at the moment. Doing the change now will be easier than in the future.
Obviously, this is a pretty big change so I'd like as many people's opinions on the suggestion as possible. AlexJ 23:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
That's 3 positives so far, so I'll press ahead with preparations. The plan is to keep use Grand Prix in the template name (as that's common in the three uses). If we're happy to keep {{{ Infobox Grand Prix race report}} then I'll go along with that. I'll give it another day for any objections to be expressed and then go ahead with the changes. AlexJ 22:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
{{{ Infobox Grand Prix race report}} is the new template to be used for all Grand Prix events - Some basic documentation and cut-and-pastes has been provided but please feel free to help improve on that. I need to ensure all features in the F1 and EC infoboxes have been included, then I'll get them converted to this new one as well. Could I ask that any new F1 articles use {{{ Infobox Grand Prix race report}} from now on. Any problems, please let me know. Thanks, AlexJ 12:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
On the subject of Category:Race report infoboxes, is the intention that this category should only contain templates for race reports of motor races? If so, then should it perhaps be renamed to "Motor race report infoboxes" or "Motorsport race report infoboxes"? DH85868993 08:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just noticed that {{ F1 race report infobox}} used to display the lap number on which the fastest lap was recorded, but {{ Infobox Grand Prix race report}} does not. Do we want that functionality restored? Note that it's not exactly trivial, since if multiple drivers shared the fastest lap time, then they are likely to have set them on different laps. DH85868993 02:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering how relevant it is to list the 2006 WCC position in the infobox in F1 team articles. Aren't readers likely to be more interested in the team's position in the 2007 championship? I also note that it's inconsistent with the driver articles, where the infobox displays the 2007 Championship position. Thoughts? DH85868993 05:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This is just an idea, and feel free to shoot me down in flames if you want. I would like to clear up the ambiguity and confusion in results tables over drivers that started a Grand Prix which was then stopped and restarted without them for whatever reason. So did they start the race or not? We recently had issues over the Mike Thackwell and Derek Daly articles, and there is a similar question with the restart of the 1998 Belgian Grand Prix, with Ricardo Rosset, Mika Salo etc. Is it a good idea to represent this in the driver results tables with a separate colour? As it stands, some instances show "Ret", others "DNS", and in many cases I think it's misleading, or at least not as informative as it should be. In any case, quite a few editors have drawn attention to it.
I am thinking maybe of showing them as "DNS" but in yellow instead of white, with a * and a footnote to describe what happened. Is this a good idea, or just further clutter? Maybe a different format - a "Ret / DNS", or a different colour? Does anyone else care? Will it be a case of no-one objecting until after I spend weeks working on it, then people come out and say they hate it? :) Any thoughts? Bretonbanquet 17:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
That is a big question, should qualifying results influenced by penalty that drivers cater? That is nonsense to have a qualifying results influenced by penalty, reorganized the table once they have penalty WHILE we have start grid in the race table. It seems something duplicate only.
I think the qualifying should NOT influenced by the penalty, while the drivers who finished in the top 3 but cater a penalty still appear in the the press conference, what I'm remember. It should stay what original. BUT we can have a note in the race table WHY those drivers were demoted from original grid. Comments? -- Aleen f1 12:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been working extensively on 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix over the last few days. It was a featured article candidate here, and I was pretty scathing of it. So as a matter of principle when asked to help I was more than happy to. However there are no non-controversial featured race articles, so to an extent I'm working in the dark.
Anyway, I've reviewed the article as neutrally as I can against the FA criteria, but would like some extra input. In particular I'd like to see if people here think the prose is good enough to pass 1(a), and whether there are any other omissions that I haven't considered. Many thanks. BeL1EveR 19:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
So, I'm building a results table for Hermann Lang at User:Guroadrunner/Lang, and I got to thinking: this guy won a lot in Grand Prix racing; should we have an inclusive list of victories for drivers like this? – Guroadrunner 23:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Should they be directed to Mercedes-Benz, or Mercedes-Benz in motorsport? I ask because Ferrari redirects to Scuderia Ferrari, and similarly the Mercedes team was a racing offshoot of the main manufacturer. Guroadrunner 22:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
A stub article on BMW's presumed chassis next year, the F1.08. All of the stats in the infobox are assumptions, and there is pretty much no text outside of the actual article. Delete it per WP:CRYSTAL? The359 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we put Kimi Raikkonen, Lewis Hamilton and 2007 Formula One season on our watchlists; they are already being targeted by IPs and other registered users. Davnel03 18:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
What do people think about the recently updated format for {{
Formula One circuits}}?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Formula_One_circuits&oldid=166179957
Personally, I prefer the
old format, which is consistent with most (all?) of the other "circuits" templates, e.g. {{
ALMS circuits}}, {{
Champ Car tracks}}, etc.
DH85868993
02:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Just as an aside: there seems to be an attack of the uniformists on navboxes at the moment. Never mind that the "usual" format and colouring are simultaneously clumsy and dull, "everything must be the same" seems to be the rallying cry. I have already tried to fend of some of the raptors at {{ Scuderia Ferrari}}, but I get the impression that someone out there is coordinating this. Pyrop e 13:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Archives 10, 11 and 12 appear to be blanked or gone?? I have no clue what happened though. Guroadrunner 02:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I pulled the bot off – I've pulled the bot off. I don't know who put it on, but it seemed like taking a Bold Move and remove it was the right thing to do. So, there. Guroadrunner 18:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I notice that the 2007 teams and drivers in {{ Formula One teams}} have already been replaced with the 2008 ones. Personally, I think this is a bit premature - I think the 2007 teams and drivers are still a lot more "current" than the 2008 ones. I'd recommend retaining the 2007 information in the template until at least the end of the calendar year. Note that I'd be quite happy for the template to contain the 2008 information in addition to the 2007 data. I'd also apply the same logic to other templates, e.g. {{ Formula One circuits}}. Thoughts? DH85868993 14:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi all. Some questions have lately been raised with regard to the formatting of {{ Scuderia Ferrari}}, which go to the very heart of how we as a project deal with navbox formatting and style. Please see the discussion at the template's talk page for an update on the issues and, so that we can bring everyone with an interest together, leave comments here. Cheers. Pyrop e 14:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
What is the current inclusion criteria for "notable drivers"? Looking at the Ferrari template there are some that I wouldn't really think are important in the history of the team. She we look at an "X wins OR Y years" criteria? violet/riga (t) 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
We could possibly come up with a guideline, but not a rule, I think. The criteria are going to be different for different teams. Possibly along these lines:
Too big! This takes up a large proportion of even a 16:9 display. The text should be smaller as per most infoboxes, e.g. Template:Infobox Company & Template:Infobox Aircraft and this should also allow us to narrow it. Mark83 23:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a general note that McLaren's fine has been set as "a sum in excess of $50million" after effective prize money has been deducted from the $100million dollar fine. The money will go towards establishing the "FIA Development Fund" - a fund to promote the development of safer motor sport worldwide. Source. Probably quite a few articles that need updating to reflect this. AlexJ 13:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi – Would anyone be perturbed if I began to reduce the font-size used for drivers' results tables by a notch (e.g. by 5% to 90%) and reduce the horizontal space used in these tables by combining the Engine/Chassis columns? Here's an example of what I have in mind (Juan Montoya's CART results):
Year | Team | Chassis Engine |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Rnk | Pts |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1999 | Ganassi |
Reynard Honda |
MIA 10 |
MOT 13 |
LBH 1 |
NAZ 1 |
RIO 1 |
GAT 11 |
MIL 10 |
POR 2 |
CLE 1 |
ROA 13 |
TOR Ret |
MIC 2 |
DET 17 |
MDO 1 |
CHI 1 |
VAN 1 |
LAG 8 |
HOU 25 |
SUR Ret |
FON 4 |
1st | 212 |
2000 | Ganassi |
Lola Toyota |
MIA Ret |
LBH Ret |
RIO Ret |
MOT 7 |
NAZ 4 |
MIL 1 |
DET 18 |
POR Ret |
CLE 6 |
TOR Ret |
MIC 1 |
CHI 12 |
MDO Ret |
ROA Ret |
VAN Ret |
LAG 6 |
GAT 1 |
HOU 2 |
SUR 24 |
FON 10 |
9th | 126 |
in place of:
Yr | Team | Chassis | Engine | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Rank | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1999 | Ganassi | Reynard | Honda | MIA 10 |
MOT 13 |
LBH 1 |
NAZ 1 |
RIO 1 |
GAT 11 |
MIL 10 |
POR 2 |
CLE 1 |
ROA 13 |
TOR Ret |
MIC 2 |
DET 17 |
MDO 1 |
CHI 1 |
VAN 1 |
LAG 8 |
HOU 25 |
SUR Ret |
FON 4 |
1st | 212 |
2000 | Ganassi | Lola | Toyota | MIA Ret |
LBH Ret |
RIO Ret |
MOT 7 |
NAZ 4 |
MIL 1 |
DET 18 |
POR Ret |
CLE 6 |
TOR Ret |
MIC 1 |
CHI 12 |
MDO Ret |
ROA Ret |
VAN Ret |
LAG 6 |
GAT 1 |
HOU 2 |
SUR 24 |
FON 10 |
9th | 126 |
The smaller size means these kinds of tables are more likely to be viewable in their entirety on a smaller screen (800x600) or if a browser window isn't using the entire width of a larger screen. Sardanaphalus 23:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Year | Team | Chassis Engine |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | Pts | Rnk |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1971 | March |
April
711 Bloggs DFV V8 |
RSA | ESP | MON | NED | FRA | GBR | GER |
AUT Ret |
ITA | CAN | USA | 0 | - | ||||||
1972 | March |
April
711 Doe Engine V8 |
ARG 11 |
RSA 7 |
0 | - | |||||||||||||||
April
721X Doe Engine V8 |
ESP Ret |
MON 16 |
BEL 12 |
||||||||||||||||||
April
721G Cosworth DFV V8 |
FRA Ret |
GBR 9 |
GER Ret |
AUT 10 |
ITA 13 |
CAN DSQ |
USA NC |
||||||||||||||
1973 | BRM |
BRM
P160C BRM V12 |
ARG Ret |
BRA 8 |
18th | 2 | |||||||||||||||
BRM
P160D BRM V12 |
RSA Ret |
||||||||||||||||||||
BRM
P160D BRM V12 |
ESP Ret |
BEL 5 |
MON Ret |
SWE 13 |
FRA 9 |
GBR 12 |
NED Ret |
GER Ret |
AUT DNS |
ITA Ret |
CAN Ret |
USA Ret |
As this would be a table appearing in an article about a driver, anyone interested to discover his/her team's sponsor/s for a particular year could visit the team's article, where using the official full name would seem more relevant. In case you think otherwise, I'm suggest these amendments as I reckon it follows the spirit of the neat abbreviation system used for the races themselves (three-letter IDs and coded backgrounds). Sardanaphalus 20:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Alternative format, re-enlarging team name and race columns but further reducing the Chassis/Engine font-size (driver article):
Year | Team | Chassis Engine |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | Pts | Rnk |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1971 | March |
April
711 Bloggs DFV V8 |
RSA | ESP | MON | NED | FRA | GBR | GER |
AUT Ret |
ITA | CAN | USA | 0 | - | ||||||
1972 | March |
April
711 Doe Engine V8 |
ARG 11 |
RSA 7 |
0 | - | |||||||||||||||
April
721X Doe Engine V8 |
ESP Ret |
MON 16 |
BEL 12 |
||||||||||||||||||
April
721G Cosworth DFV V8 |
FRA Ret |
GBR 9 |
GER Ret |
AUT 10 |
ITA 13 |
CAN DSQ |
USA NC |
||||||||||||||
1973 | BRM |
BRM
P160C BRM V12 |
ARG Ret |
BRA 8 |
18th | 2 | |||||||||||||||
BRM
P160D BRM V12 |
RSA Ret |
||||||||||||||||||||
BRM
P160D BRM V12 |
ESP Ret |
BEL 5 |
MON Ret |
SWE 13 |
FRA 9 |
GBR 12 |
NED Ret |
GER Ret |
AUT DNS |
ITA Ret |
CAN Ret |
USA Ret |
The two "motor racing results legend" templates are currently inconsistent with regard to the background colour for "NC" (Not Classified) results. {{ F1 driver results legend 2}} (which is used by the majority of F1 articles) specifies it as blue, whereas {{ F1 driver results legend}} (which is used by a minority of F1 articles, but also lots of non-F1 articles) specifies it as purple. What's the best course of action? Note that {{ F1 driver results legend 2}} has some F1-specific content (Friday test drivers), which makes it unsuitable for use in non-F1 articles. DH85868993 03:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The Formula One Featured Article Review will likely conclude shortly by removing the article's Featured Status. Basically it needs more inline citations. I don't disagree with the criticism, but have found it difficult to easily cite such a broad article - can anyone help? Cheers. 4u1e 11:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
There are problems in the article which need to be rectified. Football (soccer) recently was up for FAR. Look at it was like before, with several paragraphs unsourced. Look at it now, with those paragraphs sourced. The same needs to happen with the Formula One, because if it doesn't, the chances of it being delisted are significantly high. Davnel03 18:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Is the above page inactive? If so, I really think we could try and revive the page. Davnel03 21:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
{{ Current F1 COTW}}
Couple of thoughts: Firstly, someone really needs to push the process - it sort of worked for a bit when I did so a while back - Monaco Grand Prix is the best example from that period. (I don't intend to try and run the process again, though - I'm not conscientious or consistent enough in my Wikipedia habits!) Secondly, it needs a deadline and a firm aim: one month and GA quality worked fairly well. If the desired article hasn't reached the right standard by the deadline (whatever that is) then move on to a new one. Don't let the exercise drag on. 4u1e 17:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I started the F1 company pages SLEC Holdings, Formula One Management, Formula One Administration, Allsport Management, Alpha Prema and Formula One Holdings. However the duplication between them was immense or else they were just stubs. Given that, and the fact that CVC has integrated them quite a bit since its purchase, I have merged the above articles into SLEC Holdings and renamed it Formula One Group.
The history of how F1 developed commercially is now available in one place instead of fragmented over many articles. The history still needs expanded, however it will be much easier now. Mark83 23:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you start an article on the Aussie driver Andrew Miedecke thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
A while back (in Archive 10 I think) there was a discussion prompted by DH about which track map to use for the Adelaide circuit, as we now have two in use.
With this in mind, there are still Aussie GP's without the trackmap/infobox in place and things didn't come to a conclusive decision.
The discussions sort of petered out, but here is what I'm proposing:
Any thoughts? Guroadrunner 15:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This is just a thought that crossed my mind while seeing the Formula One template. Would it be a nice idea to create an article about Formula 1 'families'? A kind of timeline about the likes of Graham & Damon Hill, Gilles & Jacques Villeneuve, Michael & Ralf Schumacher, Pedro & Ricardo Rodríguez etc. Unfortunally I don't have much resources for such an article myself. Just thought I share this with you guys. Paul Klein —Preceding comment was added at 17:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Lotterstedt has changed the template pretty seriously... I'm past caring enough to argue about it, but someone here might. Bretonbanquet 14:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I think if you actually use the term WD you also have to explain it in a more detailed way. I don't think that it equals to "original research", because it's crucial for several statistics/tables here at W (for example how many starts a driver has actually made).
Tombag recently added a table to the {{ Formula One teams}} template with a list of drivers who are in contention for 2008 drives, but are not confirmed in specific seats ( Fernando Alonso, Heikki Kovalainen and so on). I removed this table on the basis that for 2007, the template was in effect restarted after the 2006 Brazilian Grand Prix, with the gaps being filled in as new deals between drivers and teams were confirmed. I also think it is too subjective to include a list of drivers who could potentially be driving in F1 next year, even if some of them are obvious. Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter?-- Diniz ( talk) 23:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else have a viewpoint concerning this?-- Diniz ( talk) 23:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The Formula One FAR has ended, with the article being delisted, as the required improvements were not made to the article. Davnel03 18:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
To bring up a point brought up in the WP:MOTOR discussion, I do have to question the claim by Davnel that it is "not [his] fault if no action was taken". You are obviously a daily editor of Formula One articles, and have created many GA and FA status articles. I cannot help but ask why, as an experienced and knowledgable Formula One editor who is experienced in providing citations to bring articles to FA status, you did nothing to actually improve the article yourself? In fact, looking through the history of Formula One, the only edits you've made to the page were the additions of citation and referencing templates. If you were so adament that this page was not worthy of FA status that it needed to be tagged and put into FAR, why didn't you, who had more then enough ability, do something to fix it in the first place?
I know that the rest of us didn't do very much either, although some people did attempt to make improvements to the article. However I really have to think it's uncalled for to claim that you are not at fault when you did as little as everyone else. The359 22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
_______
-- Guroadrunner 14:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
From an only part-time F1 contributor, I have to ask, what is preventing the article from immediately being put in for GA status, or identification of what must be acquired for GA status if the nomination fails? -- Chr.K. 23:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to see the word "deflection" in a number of Formula One car articles recently, don't get me wrong I have no problem with using the word, it's just that they aren't wiki-linked to a article about deflection or another article that explains the theory of deflection within the article.
I don't mind doing an article on this, once I get some formal references for it, but I was wondering if I could get some community help with this article and also if there is the exsistence (sp? Sorry, University FireFox doesn't have a spell checker) of an explanation on Wikipedia or if people feel that there isn't a need for an article. Thanks.-- Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 14:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I propose the following page moves:
Thoughts? DH85868993 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The list of F1 tyre records, which previously existed in both List of Formula One records and Tyres in Formula One has been removed from List of Formula One records (it has been replaced by a cross-reference to the table in Tyres in Formula One). Personally, I would have done it the other way around, to keep all the records in the one spot. Thoughts? DH85868993 21:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Over the past few days, I've reverted the addition of "2008" rows to the results tables in a couple of articles. Is there consensus that it's too early to start adding "2008" rows to results tables yet and/or that they should be added to all relevant driver/team articles at the same time? DH85868993 01:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I propose "SIN". Any objections/alternatives? DH85868993 01:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) My main objection to any change from our current list is the amount of effort it would take to update all the existing tables, for (IMO) little benefit - there are nearly 800 driver articles which would need to be checked and/or updated, plus all the team, car and season summary articles. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Abbreviation | Support |
---|---|
SIN | DH85868993, AlexJ, MTC, Pyrope, Davnel03, John Anderson |
SNG | Guroadrunner |
SGP (= ISO) | The359, Readro |
Already we have seen some inter-season testing times added to and removed from the Michael Schumacher article. I propose that any inter-season testing information considered worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia should be added into a new section within the 2008 Formula One season article (and then that section can/should be deleted once the new season starts). An alternative would be to create a dedicated article for the 2007-2008 inter-season testing information, which could/should then be deleted once the new season starts. (From memory, that's what happened between 2006 and 2007). Thoughts? DH85868993 01:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
An anon is adding increasingly speculative lists of F1 GP to the article List of Formula One Grands Prix. When it was 2009, I was going to leave it, but they've started adding 2010 to 2012 now. Is it just me, or is this largely pointless, given the changeable nature of these things? 4u1e ( talk) 12:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking at referencing stuff for the Formula One article, I thought the easiest way to reference the statement that by 1961 everyone was using mid-engined cars would just be to find a statement that the last front-engined car to compete in the world championship was in 1960. By my reckoning this was the Scarab at the last race of the 1960 season (Ferrari don't seem to have competed at the 1960 United States Grand Prix) and the 1961 Ferguson P99 didn't enter any championship events. I can't seem to find a convenient ref to this effect, though. Have I got the wrong car, and does anyone know of a convenient source? Cheers. 4u1e ( talk) 15:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
As a result of the recent progress on the Formula One article, I've added more fact tags and stuff. You guys are doing a very good job sourcing these things. This article will almost certainly get back to GA status, and hopefully back to FA. Well done! Dav nel 03 21:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
On the description of Image:Luca Badoer Minardi 1994.jpg it says it is actually Pierluigi Martini. I found out how to rename it ( link to WP:MCQ ), but I just want to make sure this is correct. Guroadrunner ( talk) 10:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This has been brought up on the 2008 Formula One season page, especially with many editors believing that anyone who drivers a team car is classified as a test driver. However, I recall consensus here was that a driver had to be employed by a team in the role as official test driver and performing tests on setups and such on the car.
So the question is, Michael Schumacher is employed by Ferrari, has been actually performing setup tests for the improvement of the team, but does not have an official position on the team as test driver, although his actual position in the team has never been declared. So, with our criteria, should Schumacher be listed as a Ferrari test driver? The359 ( talk) 21:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Recent edits to the 2008 Formula One season is stating Prodrive as not entering the 2008 season and there is a reference from f1-live saying this. I've looked on BBC Sport, the F1 official website, ITV F1 and autosport and i can't find anything about it. Is the story in f1-live true? Eddie6705 ( talk) 23:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The F1-related articles are all well maintained and up-to-date, thanks to this WikiProject. The same can't be said for articles relating to A1 Grand Prix. The article 2007-08 A1 Grand Prix of Nations, Malaysia for instance hasn't seen any updates, even though the race will start in a few hours. The information can't be added to the infobox, because it uses the qualifying structure of the previous seasons. A lot of A1 GP drivers and seat holders do not have a Wikipedia article yet. Should we at WP:F1 adopt the articles relating to A1 GP, to get them up to scratch? Or should a WikiProject A1 Grand Prix be created? Or is this a matter for Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport? A ecis Brievenbus 22:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The 1961 Monaco Grand Prix race info box lists Stirling Moss's team as Lotus- Climax, but he drove for the privateers Rob Walker Racing Team. Which team description is more accurate for the infobox? Does this question make any sense? Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 00:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Over the past few days, an anonymous IP editor has added separate "1st Qualifying" and "2nd Qualifying" tables to some of the 1989 and 1990 race reports, e.g. 1990 Canadian Grand Prix. Personally I'd prefer a single qualifying table with the drivers listed in grid order, like we have for the 2007 races. The table could still show the times for each session, like this:
Pos | No | Driver | Team | Q1 | Q2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 27 |
![]() |
McLaren- Honda | 1:20.399 | 1:19.415 |
2 | 28 |
![]() |
McLaren- Honda | 1:20.465 | 1:21.302 |
3 | 1 |
![]() |
Ferrari | 1:21.826 | 1:20.826 |
4 | 19 |
![]() |
Benetton- Ford | 1:21.302 | 1:25.115 |
(the time in bold indicates which time counted for the grid). I also think this format will be more efficient than separate tables for earlier races which had 3 or even 4 qualifying sessions. What do others think? DH85868993 ( talk) 08:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Pos | No | Driver | Team | Q1 Pos | Q1 Time | Q2 Pos | Q2 Time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 27 |
![]() |
McLaren- Honda | 1 | 1:20.399 | 1 | 1:19.415 |
2 | 28 |
![]() |
McLaren- Honda | 2 | 1:20.465 | 3 | 1:21.302 |
3 | 1 |
![]() |
Ferrari | 4 | 1:21.826 | 2 | 1:20.826 |
4 | 19 |
![]() |
Benetton- Ford | 3 | 1:21.302 | 4 | 1:25.115 |
Pos | No | Driver | Team | Q1 Time | Q2 Time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 27 |
![]() |
McLaren- Honda | 1:20.399 | 1:19.415 |
2 | 28 |
![]() |
McLaren- Honda | 1:20.465 | 1:21.302 |
3 | 1 |
![]() |
Ferrari | 1:21.826 | 1:20.826 |
4 | 19 |
![]() |
Benetton- Ford | 1:21.302 | 1:25.115 |
Pos | No | Driver | Team | Lap | Gap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 |
![]() |
McLaren- Honda | 1:34.700 | - |
2 | 1 |
![]() |
McLaren- Honda | 1:34.898 | +0.198 |
3 | 5 |
![]() |
Williams- Renault | 1:34.922 | +0.222 |
4 | 27 |
![]() |
Ferrari | 1:36.670 | +1.970 |
Pos | No | Driver | Team | Q1 Time | Q2 Time | Gap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 27 |
![]() |
McLaren- Honda | 1:20.399 | 1:19.415 | - |
2 | 28 |
![]() |
McLaren- Honda | 1:20.465 | 1:21.302 | +1.050 |
3 | 1 |
![]() |
Ferrari | 1:21.826 | 1:20.826 | +1.411 |
4 | 19 |
![]() |
Benetton- Ford | 1:21.302 | 1:25.115 | +1.887 |
Looks like someone has hacked the watermarked section of an image off and claimed the photo is self made and it has been put into the Force India article. However, I am no expert on the ruels about this, can someone else check it out? Picture added: [8] and then the original: [9] Narson ( talk) 21:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The 1961 Monaco Grand Prix article contains this statement: "21 cars showed up for the first race of the new 1.5-liter formula. The five "works" teams were guaranteed two spots each on the grid and Moss and Trintignant were in as past winners. That left nine drivers to fight over four spots. One spot did open up when Ireland, who would have qualified 10th, crashed in the tunnel and broke his leg."
Before I wikify it, how true is this as a guide to past qualifying formats? Were drivers given grid positions as past winners? and were Works teams gifted grid spots? Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You may have noticed hundreds (literally) of F1 race report articles being updated in the past few hours. In case anyone was wondering what brought this about, I submitted a request for a bot to update all the race and lap times in the F1 race reports to the standard format as agreed a while back at WP:MOTOR. – DH85868993 ( talk) 03:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys! Theres a problem with the 2011 Formula One season article. In the section were it says unconfirmed grand prix (new or returning) there have been an referenced addings to this section. I have put a secret message in but that did not stop vandals adding silly grand prixs. This is something we have to watch for. Pattav2 ( talk) 05:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Despite the project deciding a couple of times ( here and here) that these sections aren't needed, it seems that we have at least one anonymous IP editor who is very keen to see them included (to the point where if you delete the sections, they will put them back. Unfortunately, their IP address keeps changing, so it's very difficult to discuss the matter with them). If we must have these sections, can we at least define a standard format? Currently there are a variety of different formats in different articles (included in a separate page so as not to corrupt the TOC of this page). Personally I'd go for:
Thoughts? DH85868993 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Recently, many of the "<country> Grand Prix" articles have had flags added to the Winner, Pole position and Fastest lap sections of the infobox, e.g. this recent edit to British Grand Prix. Do we think these flags add value to the article? Or is this a case of using flags as decoration, which WP:FLAG counsels against. Note that I'm not against having flags in F1 articles; I just think we should set some rules for where we do and don't want them. Please discuss. DH85868993 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone has gone around adding flags to the 'base' of the F1 teams which I have reverted, really, I don't think people need a flag to know that the UK is in the UK. Maybe we should come up with some F1 MOS for flag useage, if one doesn't already exist? Narson ( talk) 01:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Plus there's the example race report, but I think that probably doesn't get used (note that it has a "2005-style" qualifying table) - I think people create new race reports by just copying an existing one. DH85868993 ( talk) 02:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Seems like it's a load of crytal balling to me. Should I be bold and redirect to Scuderia Toro Rosso? Dav nel 03 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh no what's this guy on about now?
I'd like to open up discussing a merger of third driver with test driver. I'll admit that I dashed off the test driver article quickly, but I think that third driver wouldn't necessarily stand on its own as a notable article because it is so sport-centric, but it definitely can stand well at the test driver article. Third drivers are a form of test drivers. What do you think about merging? Guroadrunner ( talk) 15:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
We are probably going to have a bit more IP vandalism over the next few days as the whole FIA not punishing Renault (and finding them guilty) thing came out today and they are beating the dead horse, uh, I mean McLaren tommorow. Narson ( talk) 20:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have just stumbled across this article that was newly created. The speculated race schedule is exactly the same as the 2011 season article, and most of it looks like it has been copied from the 2001 article. Is there any need for an article on a season so far in the future? Eddie6705 ( talk) 18:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If someone already has this year's annual, please can you confirm this edit. My copy's still on order!-- Diniz ( talk) 00:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous IP editor has recently removed the Most_wins_driver, Most_wins_constructor, Circuit_length_mi and Race_length_mi fields from template:F1 race, and then updated all the "<country> Grand Prix" (e.g. South African Grand Prix) articles to match. Was this discussed anywhere first? DH85868993 ( talk) 00:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The FIA have launched legal action over a Martin Brundle article in the Sunday Times in which he suggested the Federation was guilty of a McLaren "witch hunt". Brundle's column on 10 December 2007 is a response and is a pretty remarkable bitch slap against the FIA. [10] The issue is very interesting regarding governance of F1 and possibly needs mentioning in a lot of articles. Mark83 ( talk) 01:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Numbers are creeping back into several articles now the driver line up is nearly cemented, I wondered if there is acctually any confirmation from the FIA? (And this seems wrong as someone seems to be claiming McLaren will have 22 and 23, which stradles two teams allocation). What is the view, is there some info I don't know about here? Narson ( talk) 19:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I've recently added links to the team founder and noted personnel into the templates of several defunct F1 teams, e.g. {{ Ligier}}, {{ Brabham}} and {{ Tyrrell}}. This activity has raised some questions about which I'd appreciate the opinions of others:
Thoughts? DH85868993 ( talk) 06:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Installedpear appears to have just decided that Frank Gardner the journalist is more deserving of the page Frank Gardner than Frank Gardner the F1 driver, and has swapped them over, which probably just broke about 100 page links, is this being done by with F1 wikiprojects approval, I ask as Frank Gardner shows up at Ausmotorsport too. -- Falcadore ( talk) 00:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I just completed doing race reports for the entire 1991 season as I have the FIA review DVD and could use that for information, but the reports will take a lot of work and I don't have the resources to do reports for any other 1992-1999 races at the moment. I am going to try to start working on 1990 soon. ( Senorsoupe ( talk) 01:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC))
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)Has been nominated for GA status by another user. Only probably is that I feel like speedy failing it as I feel the article is no where near GA status. Anyone else here agree; or is it just me? D.M.N. ( talk) 12:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
And over a month later, the article has passed. Feel free to have a further go at it though, some sections are a bit iffy, and I'm sure there must be more to say about Mosley's FIA role outside F1. 4u1e ( talk) 19:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
2008 FIA Formula One World Championship Entry List - Numbers and all Drivers Confirmed. ( Force India Second Driver will be Confirmed on January 11) - Linczone Talk/ Watch 16:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Just letting you guys know that this article was created a few hours ago, and quickly had a CSD tag slapped on it. I've since removed the tag and have expanded the article a little. D.M.N. ( talk) 12:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
We should add to F1 Regulations the rule on engine changes. GoldDragon ( talk) 18:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
You may have noticed the recent creation of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Monaco Grand Prix drivers. I've started a discussion about this (and another) category at WP:MOTOR. Feel free to contribute your thoughts. DH85868993 ( talk) 02:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit. Do third/test drivers have numbers? Can't remember having seen that before, although I don't pay much attention to them. 4u1e ( talk) 19:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I have made some changes in the current featured list, including adding "circuit" and a by-circuit statistics. Would you find that is better? Raymond Giggs 08:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've recently been considering the usefulness of these categories and have come to the conclusion that they're unnecessary. My rationale is as follows:
Thoughts? DH85868993 ( talk)
![]() | Formula One Project‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Hi, I strongly recommed this project to give your notabilty guidelines for a new notabilty proposal that I'm creating on my userpage, once it is completed, I will move to wikipedia namespace for the community to decide. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Terrible headline, but Hans Ruesch raced in grand prixs before F1's formation. Should he get the "Former motorsports driver" template on his page? Guroadrunner 09:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm planning to propose Renault RS27 for deletion. Any objections? DH85868993 15:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Because of this. I'm unhappy with the decision. Sorry if this comes accross as stubborn, but I'm rather annoyed right about now. Davnel03 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a point I have raised with Davnel03 before. Too many articles are being rushed to FAC. Most of them in a very poor condition to be generous. Mark83 23:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Davnel, your attitude here is a bit much. It's a good well referenced article, but it's not 'brilliant'. The article failed because no-one felt it was good enough to support. Before the restart it was 2 Support and 4 Oppose and after the restart there were no supports. One of the supporters added some issues with the article after the restart perhaps because of your slightly aggressive comments towards him. In fact I think part of the fail was due to your attitude during the FAC process - it's no good getting all defensive and hostile when someone comments, you've got to grit your teeth and do everything you can to accommodate their suggestions. They are the only ones who can decide when they believe their concerns have been addressed so my suggestion would be to stop using Done after each comment. Instead state what you've done to address their concerns and word it so you're inviting them to say if they think it's a good enough solution. Go easy on the WP:F1 references. Wikiprojects support articles, but don't own them or dictate how things are done. Wikipedia's editors that do that. The best thing to do is show (via a link) where consensus was reached on doing something a certain way. This carries more weight than saying "WP:F1 do things this way" and is more likely to be satisfactory to the reviewer. Finally (and it's been said many times before) don't go straight to FAC/GAC. Have someone copyedit the article first. Every minor niggle picked up at this stage is one less thing for the article to be flagged up on. For a FAC, I'd recommend running it through a PR first as well (again everything picked up here is one less thing to object to at FAC). I'll leave some comments at the PR now it's up and running (yes I do have some). AlexJ 10:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Hill (constructor) was recently moved to Embassy Hill with an explanation of "per Google results". What do people think of this change? How intrinsic was "Embassy" to the team? Or was it just a sponsor? Should the name of the article be reverted to Hill (constructor)? (or something else, e.g. Hill (Formula One) or Hill (auto racing) or Hill (racing team))? DH85868993 11:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
To spur off on this, Hill drove for the Embassy Hill team, but in his results table, it says he raced for Shadow in 1973 and then Lola in 1974/75. This directly contrasts with how we do it now (full team name, and sponsor – i.e. Benson & Hedges Jordan-Ford). Should it be changed to Embassy Hill Racing for those entries ? Guroadrunner 03:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I've plopped the table in, and also expanded Embassy Hill (or, Hill (constructor) ) . The table still needs work to get all of the seasons combined, though (when you see it you'll know what I mean). Thanks to Pyrope for helping work on the table. Guroadrunner 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_September_17#Image:Francois_cevert.jpg
This is an image added by R. Dikeman, who sometimes has put up his own racing images released into free licenses.
It also is the only image of Cevert's face on the page – and fits into fair use because he is dead.
Which table is the easier to read version in your opinion and not the technically superior version
REMOVED THE SCHUMI RESULTS TABLE – NEED TO ARCHIVE PAGE Guroadrunner 07:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, the peer review for the 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix has ended. Firstly, many, many thanks to the people that put comments on the PR (Pyrope, RoyalBroil, Alex etc.). The article is currently in the middle of a "look-over" by Awadewit, so thanks to him for doing that. So, you might be trying to guess what's next? Yes, you probably know the next thing which I'm going to write. But, before I head there (yes FA), I was wondering whether anyone could, like what's recently been going on with Brabham BT19, put any in-depth comments on the talkpage, to try and help me improve the article. I'm probably not going to nominate it again for FA until the New Year as a whole load of yearbooks and stuff like that come out round Christmas (one of which I'll be buying), so hopefully I can also improve the article using that. :) Davnel03 18:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Found photos of this car on Flickr under Creative Commons, on display at the Japanese Grand Prix. A Mario Andretti John Player Special Lotus, there are a few nice shots of it. Figured I'd get positive identification before I uploaded them. No shots of the car in the background (F2/F3?) unfortunately. The359 01:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
There are numerous race report articles which have the fastest lap details listed in both the infobox and the Notes section near the end of the article. The only thing that has stopped me removing the details from the Notes section (i.e. as "duplicate information") is the fact that the Notes section specifies the average speed of the fastest lap, which isn't listed in the infobox. How should we handle this? Do we care about the average speed of the fastest lap? Should we add it to the infobox (as an optional field)? Thoughts? DH85868993 05:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
According to the 1955 Formula One season article, four events were cancelled after the 1955 Le Mans disaster. I was wondering if anyone had any information on which four races were cancelled, since it would be noteworthy for the article. I assume the Swiss Grand Prix, French Grand Prix, and German Grand Prix were three of the races, but I have no verification at the moment. The359 00:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
can we try to move up senna to mfeatured status???-- hello????? 12:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on the 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix at the moment, with a view to making it an example of how to do a featured race article for a non-controversial event (insofar as it's difficult to use 2005 United States Grand Prix or 1994 San Marino Grand Prix as examples). This is the first time that I've taken a front seat on copy-editing an actual race article, and I'm in a little bit of a dilemma.
I believe the current MoS policy is that driver's full names should only be used at the first occurance in the article. However, I think the article would be more readable if this rule was adapted slightly; in the race section one duplication should be allowed for readability purposes (N.B. I'm not proposing a driver is wikilinked twice, just that his full name is allowed to be used once more). I thought the best course of action was to ask here, rather than on the article's talk page, as any decision should be applied consistently (unless of course the outcome is for the editor to decide in each case ;) ). BeL1EveR 23:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of making a change for the infoboxes in race articles. Instead of having the circuit map in the infobox, couldn't we have the promotional poster for the race in the infobox (note, all promotional posters are on StatsF1)? Opinions? Davnel03 09:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
User:David Gerard has been adding the "no free image - do you own one?" image ([Image:Replace this image male.svg]) to lots of biography articles which don't currently have images. Of the F1 driver articles, so far he's hit Kenny Acheson and Philippe Alliot. I'm assuming that in the fullness of time, he will hit more. A couple of questions:
Thoughts? DH85868993 04:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
For those interested, it appears that a Mercedes employee vandalised the article, and the company has started an investigation. And I thought the silly season was over...-- Diniz ( talk) 18:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I know this is a bit non-Encyclopedic, but I figured some people would like this. A website which allows you to play out every possible Championship outcome based on the results in Brazil. Linky. What's amazing is that some ties in points in the championship could result in a tie-breaker of who has the most 5th place finishes over the season! The359 21:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know when drivers who had been classified in races but did not score points began to be included in the WDC standings? They were not at first, and they are now, so when did it change? FORIX is down, so I can't check. Someone is editing driver articles to show that if a driver finished 16th or something in a race in 1958, he was classified in the WDC, which isn't true. All the WDC articles for each year also need to reflect this, as we should show the standings as they were listed at the time, not as they would be lsited now under today's conventions. Bretonbanquet 17:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, are we showing drivers who were not listed in the WDC standings as "NC" or are we just leaving a dash? For example, Winkelhock this year. My understanding is that a driver isn't "Not classified", rather he just isn't on the list, in which case "NC" is not appropriate. You can be "NC" in a race, but not a Championship. Am I right or wrong? Does anyone care? Bretonbanquet 17:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
After a thorough peer review and a copy-edit, I have opted to nominate 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix for FA status for a second time. This is almost certainly the route I should of taken before. I will learn from my mistake here in the future. Instead of going straight from GA to FAC, I will head to PR in between. Anyway, the FAC discussion is here. Thanks, Davnel03 08:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that in recent MotoGP seasons, wet races were marked in the table with the light blue background, like here in 2006 table. Opinions, could we do the same in F1? I can find list of wet races so that's not a problem. BleuDXXXIV 18:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I just happened across the Venezuelan Grand Prix article. I know there were various Venezuelan GPs for sports cars and I think for bikes, but this seems to be about a future F1 event. Anyone heard of it? Google suggests not. 4u1e 16:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a fair enough article, but only as an article about the circuit. There is no Venezuelan Grand Prix, yet, or indeed, there may well never be one. Retitle it after the circuit and get rid of the POV, it's fair enough, I think. Bretonbanquet 18:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Just confirmed. Do we create a new page for Force India as it's a seperate name, or do we just move the Spyker page to Force India? At the moment, I've put Force India F1 redirecting to Spyker F1, but shouldn't it be a completely seperate page? Davnel03 15:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Pyrope. Since the name is not official yet, a redirect to Spyker F1 is the best option. When the name becomes official, Force India should become a separate article. The article Spyker F1 outlines the team that was active during the 2007 season, and that was not Force India. The sequence that Pyrope has mentioned for Red Bull and Renault should also apply to this new team: Jordan Grand Prix > Midland F1 Racing > Spyker F1 > <name of new team>. Aec·is·away talk 15:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
During the past 24 hours, KocjoBot has added "sl" interwiki links to a number of F1-related (and non-F1-related) templates. The interwiki links have incorrectly been added into the body of the template, instead of into a <noinclude> clause, which means that the links will be included in any article which transcludes the template. I've asked the bot owner to fix them up. DH85868993 02:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, there,
actually, my question is which Qualifying roles/limitations there were during the 1994 season. Formula1.com says that it was "DNQ" for Roland, in Wikipedia there is a "DNS". At this race, Belmondo did not qualify, but if you say Roland did not start, you say that he did qualify for that race.
I believe that there was the 107 % role (what would fit to the "DNQ" from formula1.com), but is it right? If so, it would've to be changed in several lists. Is there any information here on Wikipedia?
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotterstedt ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I only just noticed the Super License article and this got me thinking, at the time of Ide's little debacle, I recall it being mentioned that it was the first time a license had been revoked. I was wondering if anyone knew whether this was true or false off hand? I have been searching for some kind of source either way and coming up bone dry. Narson 22:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I have created an article for Force India F1 Team, however this is seperate to Spyker F1's article. User:Shellene 24th October 10:06
I just came across {{ Grand Prix Mini Report}} which is used on nine race reports (7 F1 races and 2 pre-F1 GP races). I think it was designed to be used for minor GP races, however in the majority of it's uses, {{ F1 race report infobox}} is the correct infobox. The remaining two races should/could use {{ Infobox Grand Prix race report}} instead (which seems to contain the same fields but in the familiar layout). Before I replace the infoboxes, are there any other reasons I may have missed for {{ Grand Prix Mini Report}} to be saved? AlexJ 09:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
{{Infobox Grand Prix race report |Type = F1 |Country = United Kingdom |Grand Prix = British |Official name = - |Date = July 17 |Year = 1954 |Race_No = 5 |Season_No = 9 |Location = [[Silverstone Circuit]], [[Northamptonshire]] |Course = Permanent racing facility |Course_mi = 0 |Course_km = 0 |Distance_laps = 0 |Distance_mi = 0 |Distance_km = 0 |Weather = - |Pole_Driver = [[Juan Manuel Fangio]] |Pole_Team = [[Mercedes]] |Pole_Time = 1'45 |Pole_Country = Argentina |Fast_Time = 1'50 |Fast_Driver = [[Alberto Ascari]] |Fast_Team = [[Maserati]] |Fast_Country = Italy |Fast_Shared_Driver = [[Jean Behra]] |Fast_Shared_Team = [[Gordini]] |Fast_Shared_Country = France |Fast_Shared_Driver2 = [[Juan Manuel Fangio]] |Fast_Shared_Team2 = [[Mercedes]] |Fast_Shared_Country2 = Argentina |Fast_Shared_Driver3 = [[Jose Froilan Gonzalez]] |Fast_Shared_Team3 = [[Scuderia Ferrari|Ferrari]] |Fast_Shared_Country3 = Argentina |Fast_Shared_Driver4 = [[Mike Hawthorn]] |Fast_Shared_Team4 = [[Scuderia Ferrari|Ferrari]] |Fast_Shared_Country4 = United Kingdom |Fast_Shared_Driver5 = [[Onofre Marimon]] |Fast_Shared_Team5 = [[Maserati]] |Fast_Shared_Country5 = Argentina |First_Driver = [[Jose Froilan Gonzalez]] |First_Team = [[Scuderia Ferrari|Ferrari]] |First_Country = Argentina |Second_Driver = [[Mike Hawthorn]] |Second_Country= United Kingdom |Second_Team = [[Scuderia Ferrari|Ferrari]] |Third_Driver = [[Onofre Marimon]] |Third_Team = [[Maserati]] |Third_Country = Argentina }} Bit of a long one, but please do read at least the first & last paragraph.
Having worked with the three race report infoboxes today ({{ Infobox Grand Prix race report}}, {{ F1 race report infobox}} and {{ EC race report infobox}}, I'm of the opinion that a combined template may be preferable.
Woah, I hear you say. They work perfectly well as they are, you just pick the appropriate one and off you go. However, I believe there are a few flaws in the current setup. From experience, some editors try to adapt the 'wrong' template to their needs, when a more suitable one exists. Someone might, for example, copy-and-paste an instance of {{ Infobox Grand Prix race report}} into a 2000 Formula One race. This will almost work, except for a red link at the top to "2000 Grand Prix Season". Someone comes along later and realises the wrong template is used so switches {{Infobox Grand Prix race report for {{F1 race report infobox - the result is the top line is fixed but there are now other problems.
The flag code for example is done differently in F1 and GP&EC. The former requires the name of the country, the latter two the file name. Other inconsistencies have crept in due to having to maintain three templates, for example Fastest lap & Grid are wikilinked in F1 but not in the other two. Features have also been added to some templates and not others. F1 has the ability to add a scheduled race distance where a race is cut short. The others don't have this, but do have the ability to represent shared drivers and two people having the fastest lap. Despite car sharing occurring in early F1 days, this can't be shown in the F1 template. Having a combined template would mean having just one place to update.
Would a combined template be able to incorporate all the permutations required by the three different types of event? Having tested out a WIP combined template with several different race types here, it does work and with fairly good documentation will be no more difficult to implement than the present templates.
How feasible is it to convert all the current uses of the previous templates to the new usage? All F1 infoboxes (by far the most used of the three) can be converted easily by a Robot find-and-replacing a few parameter names. The other two require a bit of manual input to get them to work (mainly down to the flag problem) but there are less than 50 of these in use at the moment. Doing the change now will be easier than in the future.
Obviously, this is a pretty big change so I'd like as many people's opinions on the suggestion as possible. AlexJ 23:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
That's 3 positives so far, so I'll press ahead with preparations. The plan is to keep use Grand Prix in the template name (as that's common in the three uses). If we're happy to keep {{{ Infobox Grand Prix race report}} then I'll go along with that. I'll give it another day for any objections to be expressed and then go ahead with the changes. AlexJ 22:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
{{{ Infobox Grand Prix race report}} is the new template to be used for all Grand Prix events - Some basic documentation and cut-and-pastes has been provided but please feel free to help improve on that. I need to ensure all features in the F1 and EC infoboxes have been included, then I'll get them converted to this new one as well. Could I ask that any new F1 articles use {{{ Infobox Grand Prix race report}} from now on. Any problems, please let me know. Thanks, AlexJ 12:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
On the subject of Category:Race report infoboxes, is the intention that this category should only contain templates for race reports of motor races? If so, then should it perhaps be renamed to "Motor race report infoboxes" or "Motorsport race report infoboxes"? DH85868993 08:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just noticed that {{ F1 race report infobox}} used to display the lap number on which the fastest lap was recorded, but {{ Infobox Grand Prix race report}} does not. Do we want that functionality restored? Note that it's not exactly trivial, since if multiple drivers shared the fastest lap time, then they are likely to have set them on different laps. DH85868993 02:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering how relevant it is to list the 2006 WCC position in the infobox in F1 team articles. Aren't readers likely to be more interested in the team's position in the 2007 championship? I also note that it's inconsistent with the driver articles, where the infobox displays the 2007 Championship position. Thoughts? DH85868993 05:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This is just an idea, and feel free to shoot me down in flames if you want. I would like to clear up the ambiguity and confusion in results tables over drivers that started a Grand Prix which was then stopped and restarted without them for whatever reason. So did they start the race or not? We recently had issues over the Mike Thackwell and Derek Daly articles, and there is a similar question with the restart of the 1998 Belgian Grand Prix, with Ricardo Rosset, Mika Salo etc. Is it a good idea to represent this in the driver results tables with a separate colour? As it stands, some instances show "Ret", others "DNS", and in many cases I think it's misleading, or at least not as informative as it should be. In any case, quite a few editors have drawn attention to it.
I am thinking maybe of showing them as "DNS" but in yellow instead of white, with a * and a footnote to describe what happened. Is this a good idea, or just further clutter? Maybe a different format - a "Ret / DNS", or a different colour? Does anyone else care? Will it be a case of no-one objecting until after I spend weeks working on it, then people come out and say they hate it? :) Any thoughts? Bretonbanquet 17:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
That is a big question, should qualifying results influenced by penalty that drivers cater? That is nonsense to have a qualifying results influenced by penalty, reorganized the table once they have penalty WHILE we have start grid in the race table. It seems something duplicate only.
I think the qualifying should NOT influenced by the penalty, while the drivers who finished in the top 3 but cater a penalty still appear in the the press conference, what I'm remember. It should stay what original. BUT we can have a note in the race table WHY those drivers were demoted from original grid. Comments? -- Aleen f1 12:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been working extensively on 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix over the last few days. It was a featured article candidate here, and I was pretty scathing of it. So as a matter of principle when asked to help I was more than happy to. However there are no non-controversial featured race articles, so to an extent I'm working in the dark.
Anyway, I've reviewed the article as neutrally as I can against the FA criteria, but would like some extra input. In particular I'd like to see if people here think the prose is good enough to pass 1(a), and whether there are any other omissions that I haven't considered. Many thanks. BeL1EveR 19:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
So, I'm building a results table for Hermann Lang at User:Guroadrunner/Lang, and I got to thinking: this guy won a lot in Grand Prix racing; should we have an inclusive list of victories for drivers like this? – Guroadrunner 23:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Should they be directed to Mercedes-Benz, or Mercedes-Benz in motorsport? I ask because Ferrari redirects to Scuderia Ferrari, and similarly the Mercedes team was a racing offshoot of the main manufacturer. Guroadrunner 22:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
A stub article on BMW's presumed chassis next year, the F1.08. All of the stats in the infobox are assumptions, and there is pretty much no text outside of the actual article. Delete it per WP:CRYSTAL? The359 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we put Kimi Raikkonen, Lewis Hamilton and 2007 Formula One season on our watchlists; they are already being targeted by IPs and other registered users. Davnel03 18:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
What do people think about the recently updated format for {{
Formula One circuits}}?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Formula_One_circuits&oldid=166179957
Personally, I prefer the
old format, which is consistent with most (all?) of the other "circuits" templates, e.g. {{
ALMS circuits}}, {{
Champ Car tracks}}, etc.
DH85868993
02:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Just as an aside: there seems to be an attack of the uniformists on navboxes at the moment. Never mind that the "usual" format and colouring are simultaneously clumsy and dull, "everything must be the same" seems to be the rallying cry. I have already tried to fend of some of the raptors at {{ Scuderia Ferrari}}, but I get the impression that someone out there is coordinating this. Pyrop e 13:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Archives 10, 11 and 12 appear to be blanked or gone?? I have no clue what happened though. Guroadrunner 02:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I pulled the bot off – I've pulled the bot off. I don't know who put it on, but it seemed like taking a Bold Move and remove it was the right thing to do. So, there. Guroadrunner 18:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I notice that the 2007 teams and drivers in {{ Formula One teams}} have already been replaced with the 2008 ones. Personally, I think this is a bit premature - I think the 2007 teams and drivers are still a lot more "current" than the 2008 ones. I'd recommend retaining the 2007 information in the template until at least the end of the calendar year. Note that I'd be quite happy for the template to contain the 2008 information in addition to the 2007 data. I'd also apply the same logic to other templates, e.g. {{ Formula One circuits}}. Thoughts? DH85868993 14:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi all. Some questions have lately been raised with regard to the formatting of {{ Scuderia Ferrari}}, which go to the very heart of how we as a project deal with navbox formatting and style. Please see the discussion at the template's talk page for an update on the issues and, so that we can bring everyone with an interest together, leave comments here. Cheers. Pyrop e 14:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
What is the current inclusion criteria for "notable drivers"? Looking at the Ferrari template there are some that I wouldn't really think are important in the history of the team. She we look at an "X wins OR Y years" criteria? violet/riga (t) 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
We could possibly come up with a guideline, but not a rule, I think. The criteria are going to be different for different teams. Possibly along these lines:
Too big! This takes up a large proportion of even a 16:9 display. The text should be smaller as per most infoboxes, e.g. Template:Infobox Company & Template:Infobox Aircraft and this should also allow us to narrow it. Mark83 23:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a general note that McLaren's fine has been set as "a sum in excess of $50million" after effective prize money has been deducted from the $100million dollar fine. The money will go towards establishing the "FIA Development Fund" - a fund to promote the development of safer motor sport worldwide. Source. Probably quite a few articles that need updating to reflect this. AlexJ 13:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi – Would anyone be perturbed if I began to reduce the font-size used for drivers' results tables by a notch (e.g. by 5% to 90%) and reduce the horizontal space used in these tables by combining the Engine/Chassis columns? Here's an example of what I have in mind (Juan Montoya's CART results):
Year | Team | Chassis Engine |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Rnk | Pts |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1999 | Ganassi |
Reynard Honda |
MIA 10 |
MOT 13 |
LBH 1 |
NAZ 1 |
RIO 1 |
GAT 11 |
MIL 10 |
POR 2 |
CLE 1 |
ROA 13 |
TOR Ret |
MIC 2 |
DET 17 |
MDO 1 |
CHI 1 |
VAN 1 |
LAG 8 |
HOU 25 |
SUR Ret |
FON 4 |
1st | 212 |
2000 | Ganassi |
Lola Toyota |
MIA Ret |
LBH Ret |
RIO Ret |
MOT 7 |
NAZ 4 |
MIL 1 |
DET 18 |
POR Ret |
CLE 6 |
TOR Ret |
MIC 1 |
CHI 12 |
MDO Ret |
ROA Ret |
VAN Ret |
LAG 6 |
GAT 1 |
HOU 2 |
SUR 24 |
FON 10 |
9th | 126 |
in place of:
Yr | Team | Chassis | Engine | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Rank | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1999 | Ganassi | Reynard | Honda | MIA 10 |
MOT 13 |
LBH 1 |
NAZ 1 |
RIO 1 |
GAT 11 |
MIL 10 |
POR 2 |
CLE 1 |
ROA 13 |
TOR Ret |
MIC 2 |
DET 17 |
MDO 1 |
CHI 1 |
VAN 1 |
LAG 8 |
HOU 25 |
SUR Ret |
FON 4 |
1st | 212 |
2000 | Ganassi | Lola | Toyota | MIA Ret |
LBH Ret |
RIO Ret |
MOT 7 |
NAZ 4 |
MIL 1 |
DET 18 |
POR Ret |
CLE 6 |
TOR Ret |
MIC 1 |
CHI 12 |
MDO Ret |
ROA Ret |
VAN Ret |
LAG 6 |
GAT 1 |
HOU 2 |
SUR 24 |
FON 10 |
9th | 126 |
The smaller size means these kinds of tables are more likely to be viewable in their entirety on a smaller screen (800x600) or if a browser window isn't using the entire width of a larger screen. Sardanaphalus 23:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Year | Team | Chassis Engine |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | Pts | Rnk |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1971 | March |
April
711 Bloggs DFV V8 |
RSA | ESP | MON | NED | FRA | GBR | GER |
AUT Ret |
ITA | CAN | USA | 0 | - | ||||||
1972 | March |
April
711 Doe Engine V8 |
ARG 11 |
RSA 7 |
0 | - | |||||||||||||||
April
721X Doe Engine V8 |
ESP Ret |
MON 16 |
BEL 12 |
||||||||||||||||||
April
721G Cosworth DFV V8 |
FRA Ret |
GBR 9 |
GER Ret |
AUT 10 |
ITA 13 |
CAN DSQ |
USA NC |
||||||||||||||
1973 | BRM |
BRM
P160C BRM V12 |
ARG Ret |
BRA 8 |
18th | 2 | |||||||||||||||
BRM
P160D BRM V12 |
RSA Ret |
||||||||||||||||||||
BRM
P160D BRM V12 |
ESP Ret |
BEL 5 |
MON Ret |
SWE 13 |
FRA 9 |
GBR 12 |
NED Ret |
GER Ret |
AUT DNS |
ITA Ret |
CAN Ret |
USA Ret |
As this would be a table appearing in an article about a driver, anyone interested to discover his/her team's sponsor/s for a particular year could visit the team's article, where using the official full name would seem more relevant. In case you think otherwise, I'm suggest these amendments as I reckon it follows the spirit of the neat abbreviation system used for the races themselves (three-letter IDs and coded backgrounds). Sardanaphalus 20:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Alternative format, re-enlarging team name and race columns but further reducing the Chassis/Engine font-size (driver article):
Year | Team | Chassis Engine |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | Pts | Rnk |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1971 | March |
April
711 Bloggs DFV V8 |
RSA | ESP | MON | NED | FRA | GBR | GER |
AUT Ret |
ITA | CAN | USA | 0 | - | ||||||
1972 | March |
April
711 Doe Engine V8 |
ARG 11 |
RSA 7 |
0 | - | |||||||||||||||
April
721X Doe Engine V8 |
ESP Ret |
MON 16 |
BEL 12 |
||||||||||||||||||
April
721G Cosworth DFV V8 |
FRA Ret |
GBR 9 |
GER Ret |
AUT 10 |
ITA 13 |
CAN DSQ |
USA NC |
||||||||||||||
1973 | BRM |
BRM
P160C BRM V12 |
ARG Ret |
BRA 8 |
18th | 2 | |||||||||||||||
BRM
P160D BRM V12 |
RSA Ret |
||||||||||||||||||||
BRM
P160D BRM V12 |
ESP Ret |
BEL 5 |
MON Ret |
SWE 13 |
FRA 9 |
GBR 12 |
NED Ret |
GER Ret |
AUT DNS |
ITA Ret |
CAN Ret |
USA Ret |
The two "motor racing results legend" templates are currently inconsistent with regard to the background colour for "NC" (Not Classified) results. {{ F1 driver results legend 2}} (which is used by the majority of F1 articles) specifies it as blue, whereas {{ F1 driver results legend}} (which is used by a minority of F1 articles, but also lots of non-F1 articles) specifies it as purple. What's the best course of action? Note that {{ F1 driver results legend 2}} has some F1-specific content (Friday test drivers), which makes it unsuitable for use in non-F1 articles. DH85868993 03:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The Formula One Featured Article Review will likely conclude shortly by removing the article's Featured Status. Basically it needs more inline citations. I don't disagree with the criticism, but have found it difficult to easily cite such a broad article - can anyone help? Cheers. 4u1e 11:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
There are problems in the article which need to be rectified. Football (soccer) recently was up for FAR. Look at it was like before, with several paragraphs unsourced. Look at it now, with those paragraphs sourced. The same needs to happen with the Formula One, because if it doesn't, the chances of it being delisted are significantly high. Davnel03 18:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Is the above page inactive? If so, I really think we could try and revive the page. Davnel03 21:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
{{ Current F1 COTW}}
Couple of thoughts: Firstly, someone really needs to push the process - it sort of worked for a bit when I did so a while back - Monaco Grand Prix is the best example from that period. (I don't intend to try and run the process again, though - I'm not conscientious or consistent enough in my Wikipedia habits!) Secondly, it needs a deadline and a firm aim: one month and GA quality worked fairly well. If the desired article hasn't reached the right standard by the deadline (whatever that is) then move on to a new one. Don't let the exercise drag on. 4u1e 17:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I started the F1 company pages SLEC Holdings, Formula One Management, Formula One Administration, Allsport Management, Alpha Prema and Formula One Holdings. However the duplication between them was immense or else they were just stubs. Given that, and the fact that CVC has integrated them quite a bit since its purchase, I have merged the above articles into SLEC Holdings and renamed it Formula One Group.
The history of how F1 developed commercially is now available in one place instead of fragmented over many articles. The history still needs expanded, however it will be much easier now. Mark83 23:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you start an article on the Aussie driver Andrew Miedecke thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
A while back (in Archive 10 I think) there was a discussion prompted by DH about which track map to use for the Adelaide circuit, as we now have two in use.
With this in mind, there are still Aussie GP's without the trackmap/infobox in place and things didn't come to a conclusive decision.
The discussions sort of petered out, but here is what I'm proposing:
Any thoughts? Guroadrunner 15:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This is just a thought that crossed my mind while seeing the Formula One template. Would it be a nice idea to create an article about Formula 1 'families'? A kind of timeline about the likes of Graham & Damon Hill, Gilles & Jacques Villeneuve, Michael & Ralf Schumacher, Pedro & Ricardo Rodríguez etc. Unfortunally I don't have much resources for such an article myself. Just thought I share this with you guys. Paul Klein —Preceding comment was added at 17:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Lotterstedt has changed the template pretty seriously... I'm past caring enough to argue about it, but someone here might. Bretonbanquet 14:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I think if you actually use the term WD you also have to explain it in a more detailed way. I don't think that it equals to "original research", because it's crucial for several statistics/tables here at W (for example how many starts a driver has actually made).
Tombag recently added a table to the {{ Formula One teams}} template with a list of drivers who are in contention for 2008 drives, but are not confirmed in specific seats ( Fernando Alonso, Heikki Kovalainen and so on). I removed this table on the basis that for 2007, the template was in effect restarted after the 2006 Brazilian Grand Prix, with the gaps being filled in as new deals between drivers and teams were confirmed. I also think it is too subjective to include a list of drivers who could potentially be driving in F1 next year, even if some of them are obvious. Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter?-- Diniz ( talk) 23:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else have a viewpoint concerning this?-- Diniz ( talk) 23:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The Formula One FAR has ended, with the article being delisted, as the required improvements were not made to the article. Davnel03 18:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
To bring up a point brought up in the WP:MOTOR discussion, I do have to question the claim by Davnel that it is "not [his] fault if no action was taken". You are obviously a daily editor of Formula One articles, and have created many GA and FA status articles. I cannot help but ask why, as an experienced and knowledgable Formula One editor who is experienced in providing citations to bring articles to FA status, you did nothing to actually improve the article yourself? In fact, looking through the history of Formula One, the only edits you've made to the page were the additions of citation and referencing templates. If you were so adament that this page was not worthy of FA status that it needed to be tagged and put into FAR, why didn't you, who had more then enough ability, do something to fix it in the first place?
I know that the rest of us didn't do very much either, although some people did attempt to make improvements to the article. However I really have to think it's uncalled for to claim that you are not at fault when you did as little as everyone else. The359 22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
_______
-- Guroadrunner 14:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
From an only part-time F1 contributor, I have to ask, what is preventing the article from immediately being put in for GA status, or identification of what must be acquired for GA status if the nomination fails? -- Chr.K. 23:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to see the word "deflection" in a number of Formula One car articles recently, don't get me wrong I have no problem with using the word, it's just that they aren't wiki-linked to a article about deflection or another article that explains the theory of deflection within the article.
I don't mind doing an article on this, once I get some formal references for it, but I was wondering if I could get some community help with this article and also if there is the exsistence (sp? Sorry, University FireFox doesn't have a spell checker) of an explanation on Wikipedia or if people feel that there isn't a need for an article. Thanks.-- Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 14:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I propose the following page moves:
Thoughts? DH85868993 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The list of F1 tyre records, which previously existed in both List of Formula One records and Tyres in Formula One has been removed from List of Formula One records (it has been replaced by a cross-reference to the table in Tyres in Formula One). Personally, I would have done it the other way around, to keep all the records in the one spot. Thoughts? DH85868993 21:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Over the past few days, I've reverted the addition of "2008" rows to the results tables in a couple of articles. Is there consensus that it's too early to start adding "2008" rows to results tables yet and/or that they should be added to all relevant driver/team articles at the same time? DH85868993 01:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I propose "SIN". Any objections/alternatives? DH85868993 01:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) My main objection to any change from our current list is the amount of effort it would take to update all the existing tables, for (IMO) little benefit - there are nearly 800 driver articles which would need to be checked and/or updated, plus all the team, car and season summary articles. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Abbreviation | Support |
---|---|
SIN | DH85868993, AlexJ, MTC, Pyrope, Davnel03, John Anderson |
SNG | Guroadrunner |
SGP (= ISO) | The359, Readro |
Already we have seen some inter-season testing times added to and removed from the Michael Schumacher article. I propose that any inter-season testing information considered worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia should be added into a new section within the 2008 Formula One season article (and then that section can/should be deleted once the new season starts). An alternative would be to create a dedicated article for the 2007-2008 inter-season testing information, which could/should then be deleted once the new season starts. (From memory, that's what happened between 2006 and 2007). Thoughts? DH85868993 01:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
An anon is adding increasingly speculative lists of F1 GP to the article List of Formula One Grands Prix. When it was 2009, I was going to leave it, but they've started adding 2010 to 2012 now. Is it just me, or is this largely pointless, given the changeable nature of these things? 4u1e ( talk) 12:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking at referencing stuff for the Formula One article, I thought the easiest way to reference the statement that by 1961 everyone was using mid-engined cars would just be to find a statement that the last front-engined car to compete in the world championship was in 1960. By my reckoning this was the Scarab at the last race of the 1960 season (Ferrari don't seem to have competed at the 1960 United States Grand Prix) and the 1961 Ferguson P99 didn't enter any championship events. I can't seem to find a convenient ref to this effect, though. Have I got the wrong car, and does anyone know of a convenient source? Cheers. 4u1e ( talk) 15:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
As a result of the recent progress on the Formula One article, I've added more fact tags and stuff. You guys are doing a very good job sourcing these things. This article will almost certainly get back to GA status, and hopefully back to FA. Well done! Dav nel 03 21:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
On the description of Image:Luca Badoer Minardi 1994.jpg it says it is actually Pierluigi Martini. I found out how to rename it ( link to WP:MCQ ), but I just want to make sure this is correct. Guroadrunner ( talk) 10:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This has been brought up on the 2008 Formula One season page, especially with many editors believing that anyone who drivers a team car is classified as a test driver. However, I recall consensus here was that a driver had to be employed by a team in the role as official test driver and performing tests on setups and such on the car.
So the question is, Michael Schumacher is employed by Ferrari, has been actually performing setup tests for the improvement of the team, but does not have an official position on the team as test driver, although his actual position in the team has never been declared. So, with our criteria, should Schumacher be listed as a Ferrari test driver? The359 ( talk) 21:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Recent edits to the 2008 Formula One season is stating Prodrive as not entering the 2008 season and there is a reference from f1-live saying this. I've looked on BBC Sport, the F1 official website, ITV F1 and autosport and i can't find anything about it. Is the story in f1-live true? Eddie6705 ( talk) 23:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The F1-related articles are all well maintained and up-to-date, thanks to this WikiProject. The same can't be said for articles relating to A1 Grand Prix. The article 2007-08 A1 Grand Prix of Nations, Malaysia for instance hasn't seen any updates, even though the race will start in a few hours. The information can't be added to the infobox, because it uses the qualifying structure of the previous seasons. A lot of A1 GP drivers and seat holders do not have a Wikipedia article yet. Should we at WP:F1 adopt the articles relating to A1 GP, to get them up to scratch? Or should a WikiProject A1 Grand Prix be created? Or is this a matter for Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport? A ecis Brievenbus 22:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The 1961 Monaco Grand Prix race info box lists Stirling Moss's team as Lotus- Climax, but he drove for the privateers Rob Walker Racing Team. Which team description is more accurate for the infobox? Does this question make any sense? Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 00:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Over the past few days, an anonymous IP editor has added separate "1st Qualifying" and "2nd Qualifying" tables to some of the 1989 and 1990 race reports, e.g. 1990 Canadian Grand Prix. Personally I'd prefer a single qualifying table with the drivers listed in grid order, like we have for the 2007 races. The table could still show the times for each session, like this:
Pos | No | Driver | Team | Q1 | Q2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 27 |
![]() |
McLaren- Honda | 1:20.399 | 1:19.415 |
2 | 28 |
![]() |
McLaren- Honda | 1:20.465 | 1:21.302 |
3 | 1 |
![]() |
Ferrari | 1:21.826 | 1:20.826 |
4 | 19 |
![]() |
Benetton- Ford | 1:21.302 | 1:25.115 |
(the time in bold indicates which time counted for the grid). I also think this format will be more efficient than separate tables for earlier races which had 3 or even 4 qualifying sessions. What do others think? DH85868993 ( talk) 08:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Pos | No | Driver | Team | Q1 Pos | Q1 Time | Q2 Pos | Q2 Time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 27 |
![]() |
McLaren- Honda | 1 | 1:20.399 | 1 | 1:19.415 |
2 | 28 |
![]() |
McLaren- Honda | 2 | 1:20.465 | 3 | 1:21.302 |
3 | 1 |
![]() |
Ferrari | 4 | 1:21.826 | 2 | 1:20.826 |
4 | 19 |
![]() |
Benetton- Ford | 3 | 1:21.302 | 4 | 1:25.115 |
Pos | No | Driver | Team | Q1 Time | Q2 Time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 27 |
![]() |
McLaren- Honda | 1:20.399 | 1:19.415 |
2 | 28 |
![]() |
McLaren- Honda | 1:20.465 | 1:21.302 |
3 | 1 |
![]() |
Ferrari | 1:21.826 | 1:20.826 |
4 | 19 |
![]() |
Benetton- Ford | 1:21.302 | 1:25.115 |
Pos | No | Driver | Team | Lap | Gap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 |
![]() |
McLaren- Honda | 1:34.700 | - |
2 | 1 |
![]() |
McLaren- Honda | 1:34.898 | +0.198 |
3 | 5 |
![]() |
Williams- Renault | 1:34.922 | +0.222 |
4 | 27 |
![]() |
Ferrari | 1:36.670 | +1.970 |
Pos | No | Driver | Team | Q1 Time | Q2 Time | Gap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 27 |
![]() |
McLaren- Honda | 1:20.399 | 1:19.415 | - |
2 | 28 |
![]() |
McLaren- Honda | 1:20.465 | 1:21.302 | +1.050 |
3 | 1 |
![]() |
Ferrari | 1:21.826 | 1:20.826 | +1.411 |
4 | 19 |
![]() |
Benetton- Ford | 1:21.302 | 1:25.115 | +1.887 |
Looks like someone has hacked the watermarked section of an image off and claimed the photo is self made and it has been put into the Force India article. However, I am no expert on the ruels about this, can someone else check it out? Picture added: [8] and then the original: [9] Narson ( talk) 21:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The 1961 Monaco Grand Prix article contains this statement: "21 cars showed up for the first race of the new 1.5-liter formula. The five "works" teams were guaranteed two spots each on the grid and Moss and Trintignant were in as past winners. That left nine drivers to fight over four spots. One spot did open up when Ireland, who would have qualified 10th, crashed in the tunnel and broke his leg."
Before I wikify it, how true is this as a guide to past qualifying formats? Were drivers given grid positions as past winners? and were Works teams gifted grid spots? Gareth E Kegg ( talk) 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You may have noticed hundreds (literally) of F1 race report articles being updated in the past few hours. In case anyone was wondering what brought this about, I submitted a request for a bot to update all the race and lap times in the F1 race reports to the standard format as agreed a while back at WP:MOTOR. – DH85868993 ( talk) 03:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys! Theres a problem with the 2011 Formula One season article. In the section were it says unconfirmed grand prix (new or returning) there have been an referenced addings to this section. I have put a secret message in but that did not stop vandals adding silly grand prixs. This is something we have to watch for. Pattav2 ( talk) 05:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Despite the project deciding a couple of times ( here and here) that these sections aren't needed, it seems that we have at least one anonymous IP editor who is very keen to see them included (to the point where if you delete the sections, they will put them back. Unfortunately, their IP address keeps changing, so it's very difficult to discuss the matter with them). If we must have these sections, can we at least define a standard format? Currently there are a variety of different formats in different articles (included in a separate page so as not to corrupt the TOC of this page). Personally I'd go for:
Thoughts? DH85868993 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Recently, many of the "<country> Grand Prix" articles have had flags added to the Winner, Pole position and Fastest lap sections of the infobox, e.g. this recent edit to British Grand Prix. Do we think these flags add value to the article? Or is this a case of using flags as decoration, which WP:FLAG counsels against. Note that I'm not against having flags in F1 articles; I just think we should set some rules for where we do and don't want them. Please discuss. DH85868993 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone has gone around adding flags to the 'base' of the F1 teams which I have reverted, really, I don't think people need a flag to know that the UK is in the UK. Maybe we should come up with some F1 MOS for flag useage, if one doesn't already exist? Narson ( talk) 01:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Plus there's the example race report, but I think that probably doesn't get used (note that it has a "2005-style" qualifying table) - I think people create new race reports by just copying an existing one. DH85868993 ( talk) 02:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Seems like it's a load of crytal balling to me. Should I be bold and redirect to Scuderia Toro Rosso? Dav nel 03 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh no what's this guy on about now?
I'd like to open up discussing a merger of third driver with test driver. I'll admit that I dashed off the test driver article quickly, but I think that third driver wouldn't necessarily stand on its own as a notable article because it is so sport-centric, but it definitely can stand well at the test driver article. Third drivers are a form of test drivers. What do you think about merging? Guroadrunner ( talk) 15:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
We are probably going to have a bit more IP vandalism over the next few days as the whole FIA not punishing Renault (and finding them guilty) thing came out today and they are beating the dead horse, uh, I mean McLaren tommorow. Narson ( talk) 20:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have just stumbled across this article that was newly created. The speculated race schedule is exactly the same as the 2011 season article, and most of it looks like it has been copied from the 2001 article. Is there any need for an article on a season so far in the future? Eddie6705 ( talk) 18:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If someone already has this year's annual, please can you confirm this edit. My copy's still on order!-- Diniz ( talk) 00:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous IP editor has recently removed the Most_wins_driver, Most_wins_constructor, Circuit_length_mi and Race_length_mi fields from template:F1 race, and then updated all the "<country> Grand Prix" (e.g. South African Grand Prix) articles to match. Was this discussed anywhere first? DH85868993 ( talk) 00:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The FIA have launched legal action over a Martin Brundle article in the Sunday Times in which he suggested the Federation was guilty of a McLaren "witch hunt". Brundle's column on 10 December 2007 is a response and is a pretty remarkable bitch slap against the FIA. [10] The issue is very interesting regarding governance of F1 and possibly needs mentioning in a lot of articles. Mark83 ( talk) 01:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Numbers are creeping back into several articles now the driver line up is nearly cemented, I wondered if there is acctually any confirmation from the FIA? (And this seems wrong as someone seems to be claiming McLaren will have 22 and 23, which stradles two teams allocation). What is the view, is there some info I don't know about here? Narson ( talk) 19:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I've recently added links to the team founder and noted personnel into the templates of several defunct F1 teams, e.g. {{ Ligier}}, {{ Brabham}} and {{ Tyrrell}}. This activity has raised some questions about which I'd appreciate the opinions of others:
Thoughts? DH85868993 ( talk) 06:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Installedpear appears to have just decided that Frank Gardner the journalist is more deserving of the page Frank Gardner than Frank Gardner the F1 driver, and has swapped them over, which probably just broke about 100 page links, is this being done by with F1 wikiprojects approval, I ask as Frank Gardner shows up at Ausmotorsport too. -- Falcadore ( talk) 00:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I just completed doing race reports for the entire 1991 season as I have the FIA review DVD and could use that for information, but the reports will take a lot of work and I don't have the resources to do reports for any other 1992-1999 races at the moment. I am going to try to start working on 1990 soon. ( Senorsoupe ( talk) 01:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC))
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)Has been nominated for GA status by another user. Only probably is that I feel like speedy failing it as I feel the article is no where near GA status. Anyone else here agree; or is it just me? D.M.N. ( talk) 12:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
And over a month later, the article has passed. Feel free to have a further go at it though, some sections are a bit iffy, and I'm sure there must be more to say about Mosley's FIA role outside F1. 4u1e ( talk) 19:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
2008 FIA Formula One World Championship Entry List - Numbers and all Drivers Confirmed. ( Force India Second Driver will be Confirmed on January 11) - Linczone Talk/ Watch 16:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Just letting you guys know that this article was created a few hours ago, and quickly had a CSD tag slapped on it. I've since removed the tag and have expanded the article a little. D.M.N. ( talk) 12:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
We should add to F1 Regulations the rule on engine changes. GoldDragon ( talk) 18:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
You may have noticed the recent creation of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Monaco Grand Prix drivers. I've started a discussion about this (and another) category at WP:MOTOR. Feel free to contribute your thoughts. DH85868993 ( talk) 02:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit. Do third/test drivers have numbers? Can't remember having seen that before, although I don't pay much attention to them. 4u1e ( talk) 19:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I have made some changes in the current featured list, including adding "circuit" and a by-circuit statistics. Would you find that is better? Raymond Giggs 08:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've recently been considering the usefulness of these categories and have come to the conclusion that they're unnecessary. My rationale is as follows:
Thoughts? DH85868993 ( talk)