![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
I just came across the Category:Monaco Grand Prix drivers. Before sending this to CfD, I wanna know the opinion of others in this WikiProject. Is this really worthwhile? Yes, Monaco is tradition, it's history, but so is Belgium, for instance. Are we gonna do this for every F1 race? Aecis·(away) talk 17:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as this discussion has been going on for two weeks, I've put the two categories up for CFD here and here. D.M.N. ( talk) 14:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The article Autódromo Oscar Alfredo Gálvez has been moved to Autódromo Juan y Oscar Gálvez some time ago, apparently based on a blogspot. I contacted the moving user, but he/she is on a wikibreak, so I'm bringing it here. Does anyone know if the circuit name has been changed? The official website doesn't mention it. Aecis·(away) talk 16:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
2012 Formula One season ( here). D.M.N. ( talk) 12:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Bridgestone Make Cars Green tyres 2008 Japan.jpg has been nominated for Featured Picture status here. Comments are welcome.-- Diniz (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Damon Hill, one of our oldest FAs, may soon be put up for WP:FAR. Giants2008 has identified some problems with it on the talk page. His points are generally fair. If anyone is able to help with copyediting or improving the quality of references, your assistance would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! 4u1e ( talk) 20:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Might be worth keeping an eye out for vandalism on the F1 articles, particularly Max Mosley. The FIA has just made an announcement that F1 is going spec-engines. Readro ( talk) 08:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this has been brought up before, but what's our view on things like this? IMO, I don't see any real need for it, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. D.M.N. ( talk) 17:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Note the above. Might be wise to put 1995 Pacific Grand Prix on watchlists. =) D.M.N. ( talk) 21:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. user:Cvinne has just moved Red Bull Racing (the F1 team article) to Red Bull Racing (Formula One) and (I think) Team Red Bull (the NASCAR team) to Red Bull Racing Team (NASCAR). Probably quite logical, but I don't think it's been discussed, so I thought I should bring it up here for a project-wide view. Also, would anyone like to volunteer to get a bot to sort out all the links. I know redirects will take care of it, but that gets very messy if things change again in future. I've started a discussion at WP:MOTOR - can we discuss it there? 4u1e ( talk) 18:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Not really. It's not the same. Chubb enna itor 19:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a centralised discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#Red Bull (various) (mentioned above but missed by me and presumably others). -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 14:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Do we have an article on this person? There is an article under the name Alan Donnelly (albeit a two line stub!), but I'm not sure whether they are the same person or not. Did Donnelly ever have a career in politics? IMO, I think there should be an article on him. D.M.N. ( talk) 19:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm just wondering about the names of corners on foreign language tracks in article text. As it stands now (not italics) the text appears faintly clumsy and harder to read. As most examples in this project I could find are not italicized, I was wondering what the views of others are when it comes to this, as I feel that many articles could benefit with italicized corner names. Thoughts? Apterygial ( talk) 04:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Hows this for a start for my improvements? 1980 German Grand Prix. Anything I should do differently before continuing on? Perhaps we should get some more links to the page, then it might make it more worthwhile? Ste900R ( talk) 08:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, well I'm hoping to get through around 3 gp's per day. They take a long time and I have a busy schedule. Hopefully I can get through a few seasons eventually. Ste900R ( talk) 09:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
(Unident) - First, before I get into a bit of a rant, well done on adding infoboxes into articles, a bit of a laborious task but worthwhile to achieve consistency. Now onto the trivia - one of my pet hates on WP. Can you consider adding these facts as prose rather than bullet points? Firstly it would help you to decide what's actually noteworthy of inclusion and what should be left out (you'd be more inclined to think "who the hell cares" reading the sentence "so-and-so won the race, the first victory for a car running Champion spark plugs" than if it was in a list of bullet points). It doesn't need to be anything fancy, you're probably adding to a stub so just an extra sentence in the main body would suffice. Having trivia sections just causes other people to copy such sections and start adding them to well-developed articles that don't need them. The other reason for using prose is that it provides the opportunity for little bit of context rather than just stating the plain fact. Twice you've been mislead by the bullet point (race entries/starts, and teams/team names) so the effect on the reader (who quite possibly has no F1 knowledge at all) will be the same or worse. Facts than can mislead are worse than no facts at all, so there is harm in a little more info. AlexJ ( talk) 15:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is currently on a GA hold, and the reviewer has said that a little copyediting needs to done. If you are passing the page and see anything at all that could be fixed then that would be useful. Cheers, Apterygial ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
During some research for my Race of Two Worlds article, I came across several mentions of a drivers union composed of Grand Prix drivers being started in the 1950s, and apparently led by Louis Chiron. They led the boycott of Grand Prix drivers against the race.
However, all I can find is that it was known as UPPI. Does anyone have any information (possibly with a reference) regarding what UPPI stood for? I'm also having trouble nailing down if they were formed before the 1957 race or 1958 race. The359 ( talk) 09:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I have recently been working on the reports from grand prix races such as the 1968 South African Grand Prix and have come to the conclusion that credit needs to be given to all those who have worked on the reports of each Grand Prix so far, because they take an awful long time to do. For example my South African page has taken me hours to do because of all the table worked involved and having to find out the information from all the different sources (and I still haven't written up the notes into full sentences yet). So just a big thank you to all the people who have spend their free time making the reports on the Grand Prix's. Ste900R ( talk) 10:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
You said: So just a big thank you to all the people who have spend their free time making the reports on the Grand Prix's. Erm, only a few articles have fully cited, neutral reports.... D.M.N. ( talk) 16:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed that the recently-created Milano (racing team) article be moved to Scuderia Milano, over the existing redirect. Please add any comments you may have here. (Note that the move requires administrator assistance, or I would have just done it myself). DH85868993 ( talk) 07:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the first two (14A and 14D) be covered in McLaren M14, with the next two (19A and 19C) covered in McLaren M19, while the McLaren M29F article should be merged into McLaren M29 I think. D.M.N. ( talk) 08:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Done all merges per DH's suggestion. D.M.N. ( talk) 17:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
As you will obviously know the Formula 1 template is designed in a way that it sits at the top of the article, instead of at the bottom of articles in a collapsible format, many of the templates in this wikiproject are in this collapsible format, and I believe the Main template should follow suit. First of all it is awkward, having a big template at the top of the page, especially in lists where it can hinder the table and prevent images from being placed alongside the list. It is also unhelpful in articles as it taking up space that could be used for images. Hopefully some of you will agree it should be placed at the bottom of the page in the collapsible format, which is the standard for most templates in Wikipedia NapHit ( talk) 19:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of templates that do go at the bottom, an editor has just flipped this one, which goes at the bottom of every race report, so that 1990 appears as the top and 2008 at the bottom. It was previously the other way around. In his edit summary, he pointed out that that was the norm. I personally preferred the first layout. Is this a case for WP:IAR, or do we keep it as is (it makes skirting around the current season easier)? Apterygial ( talk) 23:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I know some of you knew this was coming, but just a heads up. Timo Glock has been protected due to vandalism, but I've noticed several new registered users vandalizing it as well, so it (and its talk page) are worth watching. Same for Lewis Hamilton, Felipe Massa, Scuderia Ferrari, McLaren, and 2008 Formula One season. Again, also note the talk pages.
I've also removed several instances of "off-topic discussions" and cheering or jeering on article talk pages, as they don't belong per policy. The359 ( talk) 19:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Rob White (Formula One) and Bob Bell (motorsport) have been proposed for deletion. DH85868993 ( talk) 12:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I notice the recent creation of Arrows FA1, Arrows A1, Arrows A2, Arrows A4, Arrows A5, Arrows A6, Arrows A7, Arrows A8, Arrows A9, Arrows A10, Arrows A11, Footwork FA13 and Footwork FA14, all of which are redirects to Arrows. Last time some redirects like this were created, we decided it was preferable not to have the redirects, since they masked the fact that proper articles didn't exist. Do we want to keep this latest lot, or delete them? DH85868993 ( talk) 12:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Now that the last race of the season has been run, it's time for our annual discussion of which teams and drivers we consider to be "current" (and hence bolded in the various lists). Currently :-) there is a discrepancy between List of Formula One drivers, which highlights all the 2008 drivers in bold, and List of Formula One driver records which highlights "Drivers who are due to compete in the 2009 Formula One season". I suggest that for simplicity, we continue to consider the 2008 drivers and teams to be "current" until at least the 31st of December. Thoughts? DH85868993 ( talk) 13:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Well if a team announces their driver line up will change then i think its fair enough to edit the "current" lists but until we get confirmation it should remain the same as 2008 Skitzo ( talk) 20:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm on the brink of 3RR on 2009 Formula One season. Some editors simply do not heed to the fact that car numbers are not announced and still insist on adding them. I'd appreciate if someone could lend me a hand here and save me from facing any music. Thanks. Leave Sleaves talk 17:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
When do we normally create the race report articles? Just wondering, as we normally have one or two users jumping the gun - I'm expecting the calendar to change further so any creation now may be premature for some reports IMO. D.M.N. ( talk) 19:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
While I've got that heading up there, I might as well propose this minor change to the importance scale. All 2008 race reports are currently mid or higher (Singapore and Brazil) while the scale says that they should be low. It doesn't really matter, but I would say that we have current year race reports at mid importance, then come Australia next year we drop appropriate ones to low and raise '09s to mid. This seems to happen anyway and it would be good to make it official. It would also be in line with how we rank driver articles. Apterygial ( talk) 00:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps not unsurprisingly, we've already seen some addition and reversion of some 2009 season information to the F1 team and driver infoboxes. In the interest of trying to limit future occurrences and to maintain consistent/correct information in the infoboxes, while still allowing for the inclusion of "up to the nanosecond" information, what do people think of the idea of updating the F1 team and driver infoboxes and {{ Formula One teams}} such that between now and "sometime early in 2009", they display both the 2008 and 2009 information? Here's the kind of thing I'm thinking of:
Full name | Red Bull Racing |
---|---|
Base | Milton Keynes, United Kingdom |
Team principal/s |
![]() |
2008 season | |
Race drivers |
![]() ![]() |
Test drivers |
![]() |
Chassis | Red Bull RB4 |
Engine | Renault RS27 |
Tyres | Bridgestone |
2009 season | |
Race drivers |
![]() ![]() |
Test drivers |
![]() |
Chassis | TBA |
Engine | Renault |
Tyres | Bridgestone |
Formula One World Championship Career | |
Debut | 2005 Australian Grand Prix |
Latest race | 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix |
etc |
Nationality
![]() | |
Formula One World Championship career | |
---|---|
2008 team | Scuderia Toro Rosso |
2008 car # | 15 |
2009 team | Red Bull Racing |
2009 car # | TBA |
Races | 26 |
Championships | 0 |
Wins | 1 |
etc |
Thoughts? DH85868993 ( talk) 14:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I've updated {{ Formula One teams}}, {{ F1 driver}} and all the driver articles. I'll do the team template and articles tomorrow unless someone beats me to it. DH85868993 ( talk) 13:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyone knows exactly when was the pit exit extended from Senna S to Curva do Sol? 1997? - oahiyeel talk 17:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Damon Hill has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 02:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
With the chances of Prodrive entering F1 now becoming nearly non-existant, do we really need the Prodrive F1 article anymore? I think it'd be better to simply merge the information of their proposal back into Prodrive. This would also require the deletion of the Template:Prodrive F1 as it too is completely useless now. Thoughts? The359 ( talk) 22:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see the need for a merge back into Prodrive - there is information there worth keeping in there - it's a good sized start article - if it was a two-line stub, then yes, I'd see the point of deleting but there is content worth keeping in there. All I would do is change the lead from: "Prodrive F1 Team is the name of a proposed Formula One team to be run by Prodrive." to "Prodrive F1 Team was the name of a proposed Formula One team to be run by Prodrive." - with a little bit at the end of an article IMO, I can't really see the need of merging back. I don't know if we have precedent on this, but surely teams that even don't make it to the F1 grid but have some history (or even were simply proposed) have some notability? D.M.N. ( talk) 09:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Several things have been brought up above. I'm with the consensus that:
I'd personally prefer Prodrive and Phoenix Finance to stay as standalone articles, however, I'm happy to merge if consensus suggests otherwise. D.M.N. ( talk) 11:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
This reminds me. Who thinks the Ligier article should be split so that the F1 side is in one seperate article? IMO, it looks a mess. D.M.N. ( talk) 11:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
An IP editor has added an (incomplete) list of Ferrari World Champions into Template:Scuderia Ferrari (corrupting the "Former drivers" link in the process) and transcluded the template into some of those drivers' articles. Do we want to keep the list of WDCs in the template (noting that we don't have such a list in the McLaren or Lotus templates)? If so, I'll complete the list, fix the link and transclude the template into all the relevant articles. DH85868993 ( talk) 13:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I know we've discussed this before, can't remember what the decision was, but given that we seem to be using official names for races now, I propose that we sort out the mess we currently have regarding Grands Prix held in the United States.
Currently we have articles for the United States Grand Prix, United States Grand Prix East, United States Grand Prix West and the Las Vegas Grand Prix. In my view, we ought to be sticking to the official names instead of grouping them in unofficial arrangements. I shall summarise my points for clarity.
Given that we are not having an article called 2009 United Arab Emirates Grand Prix and are instead deferring to the official title of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, I propose the following.
I'd like to hear any thoughts on the above. Readro ( talk) 20:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
With regard to the abbreviations, I think a three-letter code would be more consistent with all the other codes. We currently have no two-letter codes at all, even for Great Britain, which is GBR not GB. I also think some consistency with WP:AOWR would be a good thing. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 14:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm slightly worried by a lack of responses because I want to make sure I have consensus on this scheme. I'd quite like to get the process started by the weekend but I'd like to make sure I have consensus first. I'd value any opinions. Readro ( talk) 16:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
i oppose this change. Loosmark ( talk) 19:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
because what you write isn't true. for example this: "The only race to ever officially hold the title "United States Grand Prix - East", was held at Watkins Glen. This was for one year, and the "East" bit was just a tagline to differentiate it from the Long Beach Grand Prix, which incidentally was officially the "Long Beach Grand Prix".
it wasn't for one year, it was for 3 years, the Watkins Glen race was:
1976 "XIXth United States Grand Prix-East"
1977 "XXth United States Grand Prix-East"
1979 "XXIInd United States Grand Prix-East"
"The "West" naming was completely unofficial." not true either. official names for Long Beach races:
1976 "1st United States Grand Prix - West"
1977 "IInd United States Grand Prix - West"
1978 "IIIrd United States Grand Prix - West"
1979 "IVth United States Grand Prix - West"
Loosmark ( talk) 08:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
these "official" programmes (made by whom?) aren't a reliable source at all. check on the official(!) Formula 1 website:
http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1976/
http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1977/
http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1978/
and so on. Loosmark ( talk) 10:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
"yeah right. the Official Formula One website is wrong... another realiable webpage:
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/raceresults1977.html
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/raceresults1978.html
i'm sorry but showing some webpage with flyers isn't nearly enough when respectable webpages and even the official Formula 1 webpage use USA East and USA West GP. Loosmark ( talk) 10:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Can't we set up the abreviations discussed above (before the 14th) in the relevant templates and boxes, maybe as the official page name, and make the "common names" redirects to those pages? Put both names in bold in the lead? Rather than engaging in potentially endless cycles over whose sources are more reliable? Apterygial talk stalk insane idea 11:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Here are more sources. Someone has put up a website with the inside of the programmes as well.
Readro ( talk) 17:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I have the Motor Sport 1980s archive CD, which may well have a different set of naming conventions. I'm too busy now to check all of the races, but I will do when I have some free time (please feel free to remind me if I forget ;) ).-- Diniz (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link).Years | Watkins Glen | Long Beach | Detroit | Caesars Palace | Dallas | Phoenix | Indianapolis |
1959-1975 | United States GP | ||||||
1976-1980 | United States GP | United States GP West | |||||
1981 | United States GP West | Caesars Palace GP | |||||
1982 | United States GP West | Detroit GP | Caesars Palace GP | ||||
1983 | United States GP West | Detroit GP | |||||
1984 | Detroit GP | United States GP* | |||||
1985-1988 | Detroit GP | ||||||
1989-1991 | United States GP | ||||||
2000-2007 | United States GP |
I've just gone round and standardised the race leads, as quite frankly some of them were in a state. I'm planning to work on the 2008 race reports when my Autocourse 2008-09 comes through! Does the standard lead look OK - does anyone disagree with the changes? Thanks, D.M.N. ( talk) 18:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I've finally got around to reading some of them (better late than never?) The only minor change I would suggest would be to remove the word "car" from the "finished second" part, e.g. in 2008 Australian Grand Prix, I would change "Nick Heidfeld finished second in a BMW Sauber car" to just "Nick Heidfeld finished second in a BMW Sauber". But apart from that I think they're fine. DH85868993 ( talk) 13:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
What do we want to use as the "country code" for the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix in results tables etc? "ABU", per {{ F1GP}}? Or something else? DH85868993 ( talk) 01:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Since there are a few different suggestions, let's have a vote (in time-honoured fashion):
Abbreviation | Support |
ABD | LeaveSleaves, Bretonbanquet, oahiyeel |
ABU | Bretonbanquet, Apterygial, Chubbennaitor, Readro, D.M.N., Diniz |
ADB | |
ADH | |
EAD |
I've populated the table based on the above discussion. Please feel free to make any corrections and/or add other suggestions you may have. (oahiyeel, I wasn't sure whether you preferred ABD or EAD, so I put your name against both). The lack of my name in the table indicates that I don't really care what the abbreviation is (just that we decide on one :-) DH85868993 ( talk) 09:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I notice that the "List of winners" tables in a few of the "<country> Grand Prix" articles (e.g. French Grand Prix, Canadian Grand Prix) have been updated to list the 2009 race as "Not held" or "Cancelled". Isn't a bit premature to be declaring that races "weren't held" in 2009? I recognise that we're not expecting there to be a French or Canadian Grand Prix in 2009, but they haven't "not been held" yet, if you take my point. On a related topic, for non-current races, do we really need/want a row at the top of the winners table declaring that the race wasn't held for the years after the last running (e.g. "2009-1986 Not held" in the Dutch Grand Prix article)? Noting that such rows will need to be updated every year. My thought would be to fill gaps in the table with "Not held" or "Cancelled" or whatever, but just leave the last running of the race as the top row of the table. DH85868993 ( talk) 02:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
This talk page is getting a little long with a number of inactive sections... Do we have an auto-archiver, or has it been done manually? - oahiyeel talk 02:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
If I'm to be honest I prefer manual archiving. WP:F1 isn't the most active project in the world, and, especially over the winter not many people start discussions. I think if we did start auto-archiving, important discussions over 30+ days that haven't reached consensus will be archived. For a project like WP:F1, I prefer manual archiving so we can decide for ourselves what's resolved and whatnot. D.M.N. ( talk) 16:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The above article has now been listed for Peer Review here. Feel free to converge on the article in large numbers and tell me what a doofus I am for writing such a crap article (I think that's what a PR is...) Apterygial talk stalk insane idea 11:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I notice that in many of the race report articles, the top row of the points tables in the "Standings after the race" section are bolded. Is that necessary? I've removed the bolding from a few articles, but I thought I'd check there was consensus before doing the rest (since there are quite a few). I think I know how the bolding originated - I think these "Standings after the race" tables were first added to a couple of late-season articles where the championships had already been decided, and the bolding was intended to identify the Champions. And then when tables were added to other articles, the formatting was copied. So I guess a supplementary question is: Do we want to retain the bolding for races where the Champions have already been decided? (I'd probably recommend against that, as it might cause confusion in the future). DH85868993 ( talk) 08:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
An editor has recently created Cooper T43 as a redirect to Patsy Burt. Despite the fact that the Patsy Burt article contains a photo of a T43, I think the redirect is inappropriate, because plenty of other more famous drivers (e.g. Stirling Moss, Jack Brabham, etc) also drove T43s. Does anyone the knowledge/resources and enthusiasm to convert the redirect into (at least a stub) article? Or should I nominate the redirect for deletion? DH85868993 ( talk) 00:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
There is an error with the name. Now the article is "Circuito Permanente de Jerez" (Jerez Permanent Circuit). That is a old name, using for a few years to diferenciate this circuit to
the Urban circuit on the South of the city. They using "Circuito Permanente de Alta Velocidad de Jerez" (High speed permanent circuit of Jerez) too. The Urban circuit is not exist now, and the Circuit is called "Circuito de Jerez" just.
the Here is the official web,
here a page with info of the city hall and
this is a last info in the most popular newspaper of the city (in the first line "Todo está listo en el Circuito de Jerez para albergar la resolución de la primera edición del campeonato internacional Superleague Formula."). Therefore should be moved to
Circuito de Jerez. --
Mao Zaluchi
(
talk)
18:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Can someone more technically inclined than I write a section at the above article explaining the differences between the tyres (i.e. wet, extreme wet, intermediates, soft dry, hard dry etc.). I'm writing the 2008 race reports at the moment and I don't really know what I can link to and not have to superficially explain the differences in the reports. Cheers in advance, Apterygial talk stalk insane idea 11:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Well dry are either hard-hard, soft-option; intermediate-wet; wet-extreme wet; extreme wet-doesn't exist. Chubb enna itor 18:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion on Donington Park's talk page about the new layout and a new map for us. Chubb enna itor 18:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I recently came across this section of a website, which has a wide selction of official promotional posters for old Grands Prix. I was wondering if, in your opinion, an official event poster would make a suitable addition to a high-standard Grand Prix article ( these two, for instance), and if they would be covered by a claim of fair use. Any thoughts?-- Diniz (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
I noticed this recent change to the Formula One World Champion succession box in Kimi Räikkönen. Personally, I think it was better the way it was, i.e. I think it makes more sense to link the whole term "Formula One World Champion" to the List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions article. What do others think? (Similar changes have been made to Fernando Alonso and Alain Prost). DH85868993 ( talk) 04:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
This change will be made. If I change the boxes would you prefer (a) World Champion or World Drivers Champion or (b) Formula One or Formula One linked to season year? Opinions sought. Britmax ( talk) 10:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
I just came across the Category:Monaco Grand Prix drivers. Before sending this to CfD, I wanna know the opinion of others in this WikiProject. Is this really worthwhile? Yes, Monaco is tradition, it's history, but so is Belgium, for instance. Are we gonna do this for every F1 race? Aecis·(away) talk 17:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as this discussion has been going on for two weeks, I've put the two categories up for CFD here and here. D.M.N. ( talk) 14:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The article Autódromo Oscar Alfredo Gálvez has been moved to Autódromo Juan y Oscar Gálvez some time ago, apparently based on a blogspot. I contacted the moving user, but he/she is on a wikibreak, so I'm bringing it here. Does anyone know if the circuit name has been changed? The official website doesn't mention it. Aecis·(away) talk 16:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
2012 Formula One season ( here). D.M.N. ( talk) 12:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Bridgestone Make Cars Green tyres 2008 Japan.jpg has been nominated for Featured Picture status here. Comments are welcome.-- Diniz (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Damon Hill, one of our oldest FAs, may soon be put up for WP:FAR. Giants2008 has identified some problems with it on the talk page. His points are generally fair. If anyone is able to help with copyediting or improving the quality of references, your assistance would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! 4u1e ( talk) 20:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Might be worth keeping an eye out for vandalism on the F1 articles, particularly Max Mosley. The FIA has just made an announcement that F1 is going spec-engines. Readro ( talk) 08:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this has been brought up before, but what's our view on things like this? IMO, I don't see any real need for it, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. D.M.N. ( talk) 17:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Note the above. Might be wise to put 1995 Pacific Grand Prix on watchlists. =) D.M.N. ( talk) 21:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. user:Cvinne has just moved Red Bull Racing (the F1 team article) to Red Bull Racing (Formula One) and (I think) Team Red Bull (the NASCAR team) to Red Bull Racing Team (NASCAR). Probably quite logical, but I don't think it's been discussed, so I thought I should bring it up here for a project-wide view. Also, would anyone like to volunteer to get a bot to sort out all the links. I know redirects will take care of it, but that gets very messy if things change again in future. I've started a discussion at WP:MOTOR - can we discuss it there? 4u1e ( talk) 18:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Not really. It's not the same. Chubb enna itor 19:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a centralised discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#Red Bull (various) (mentioned above but missed by me and presumably others). -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 14:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Do we have an article on this person? There is an article under the name Alan Donnelly (albeit a two line stub!), but I'm not sure whether they are the same person or not. Did Donnelly ever have a career in politics? IMO, I think there should be an article on him. D.M.N. ( talk) 19:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm just wondering about the names of corners on foreign language tracks in article text. As it stands now (not italics) the text appears faintly clumsy and harder to read. As most examples in this project I could find are not italicized, I was wondering what the views of others are when it comes to this, as I feel that many articles could benefit with italicized corner names. Thoughts? Apterygial ( talk) 04:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Hows this for a start for my improvements? 1980 German Grand Prix. Anything I should do differently before continuing on? Perhaps we should get some more links to the page, then it might make it more worthwhile? Ste900R ( talk) 08:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, well I'm hoping to get through around 3 gp's per day. They take a long time and I have a busy schedule. Hopefully I can get through a few seasons eventually. Ste900R ( talk) 09:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
(Unident) - First, before I get into a bit of a rant, well done on adding infoboxes into articles, a bit of a laborious task but worthwhile to achieve consistency. Now onto the trivia - one of my pet hates on WP. Can you consider adding these facts as prose rather than bullet points? Firstly it would help you to decide what's actually noteworthy of inclusion and what should be left out (you'd be more inclined to think "who the hell cares" reading the sentence "so-and-so won the race, the first victory for a car running Champion spark plugs" than if it was in a list of bullet points). It doesn't need to be anything fancy, you're probably adding to a stub so just an extra sentence in the main body would suffice. Having trivia sections just causes other people to copy such sections and start adding them to well-developed articles that don't need them. The other reason for using prose is that it provides the opportunity for little bit of context rather than just stating the plain fact. Twice you've been mislead by the bullet point (race entries/starts, and teams/team names) so the effect on the reader (who quite possibly has no F1 knowledge at all) will be the same or worse. Facts than can mislead are worse than no facts at all, so there is harm in a little more info. AlexJ ( talk) 15:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is currently on a GA hold, and the reviewer has said that a little copyediting needs to done. If you are passing the page and see anything at all that could be fixed then that would be useful. Cheers, Apterygial ( talk) 00:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
During some research for my Race of Two Worlds article, I came across several mentions of a drivers union composed of Grand Prix drivers being started in the 1950s, and apparently led by Louis Chiron. They led the boycott of Grand Prix drivers against the race.
However, all I can find is that it was known as UPPI. Does anyone have any information (possibly with a reference) regarding what UPPI stood for? I'm also having trouble nailing down if they were formed before the 1957 race or 1958 race. The359 ( talk) 09:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I have recently been working on the reports from grand prix races such as the 1968 South African Grand Prix and have come to the conclusion that credit needs to be given to all those who have worked on the reports of each Grand Prix so far, because they take an awful long time to do. For example my South African page has taken me hours to do because of all the table worked involved and having to find out the information from all the different sources (and I still haven't written up the notes into full sentences yet). So just a big thank you to all the people who have spend their free time making the reports on the Grand Prix's. Ste900R ( talk) 10:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
You said: So just a big thank you to all the people who have spend their free time making the reports on the Grand Prix's. Erm, only a few articles have fully cited, neutral reports.... D.M.N. ( talk) 16:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed that the recently-created Milano (racing team) article be moved to Scuderia Milano, over the existing redirect. Please add any comments you may have here. (Note that the move requires administrator assistance, or I would have just done it myself). DH85868993 ( talk) 07:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the first two (14A and 14D) be covered in McLaren M14, with the next two (19A and 19C) covered in McLaren M19, while the McLaren M29F article should be merged into McLaren M29 I think. D.M.N. ( talk) 08:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Done all merges per DH's suggestion. D.M.N. ( talk) 17:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
As you will obviously know the Formula 1 template is designed in a way that it sits at the top of the article, instead of at the bottom of articles in a collapsible format, many of the templates in this wikiproject are in this collapsible format, and I believe the Main template should follow suit. First of all it is awkward, having a big template at the top of the page, especially in lists where it can hinder the table and prevent images from being placed alongside the list. It is also unhelpful in articles as it taking up space that could be used for images. Hopefully some of you will agree it should be placed at the bottom of the page in the collapsible format, which is the standard for most templates in Wikipedia NapHit ( talk) 19:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of templates that do go at the bottom, an editor has just flipped this one, which goes at the bottom of every race report, so that 1990 appears as the top and 2008 at the bottom. It was previously the other way around. In his edit summary, he pointed out that that was the norm. I personally preferred the first layout. Is this a case for WP:IAR, or do we keep it as is (it makes skirting around the current season easier)? Apterygial ( talk) 23:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I know some of you knew this was coming, but just a heads up. Timo Glock has been protected due to vandalism, but I've noticed several new registered users vandalizing it as well, so it (and its talk page) are worth watching. Same for Lewis Hamilton, Felipe Massa, Scuderia Ferrari, McLaren, and 2008 Formula One season. Again, also note the talk pages.
I've also removed several instances of "off-topic discussions" and cheering or jeering on article talk pages, as they don't belong per policy. The359 ( talk) 19:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Rob White (Formula One) and Bob Bell (motorsport) have been proposed for deletion. DH85868993 ( talk) 12:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I notice the recent creation of Arrows FA1, Arrows A1, Arrows A2, Arrows A4, Arrows A5, Arrows A6, Arrows A7, Arrows A8, Arrows A9, Arrows A10, Arrows A11, Footwork FA13 and Footwork FA14, all of which are redirects to Arrows. Last time some redirects like this were created, we decided it was preferable not to have the redirects, since they masked the fact that proper articles didn't exist. Do we want to keep this latest lot, or delete them? DH85868993 ( talk) 12:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Now that the last race of the season has been run, it's time for our annual discussion of which teams and drivers we consider to be "current" (and hence bolded in the various lists). Currently :-) there is a discrepancy between List of Formula One drivers, which highlights all the 2008 drivers in bold, and List of Formula One driver records which highlights "Drivers who are due to compete in the 2009 Formula One season". I suggest that for simplicity, we continue to consider the 2008 drivers and teams to be "current" until at least the 31st of December. Thoughts? DH85868993 ( talk) 13:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Well if a team announces their driver line up will change then i think its fair enough to edit the "current" lists but until we get confirmation it should remain the same as 2008 Skitzo ( talk) 20:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm on the brink of 3RR on 2009 Formula One season. Some editors simply do not heed to the fact that car numbers are not announced and still insist on adding them. I'd appreciate if someone could lend me a hand here and save me from facing any music. Thanks. Leave Sleaves talk 17:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
When do we normally create the race report articles? Just wondering, as we normally have one or two users jumping the gun - I'm expecting the calendar to change further so any creation now may be premature for some reports IMO. D.M.N. ( talk) 19:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
While I've got that heading up there, I might as well propose this minor change to the importance scale. All 2008 race reports are currently mid or higher (Singapore and Brazil) while the scale says that they should be low. It doesn't really matter, but I would say that we have current year race reports at mid importance, then come Australia next year we drop appropriate ones to low and raise '09s to mid. This seems to happen anyway and it would be good to make it official. It would also be in line with how we rank driver articles. Apterygial ( talk) 00:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps not unsurprisingly, we've already seen some addition and reversion of some 2009 season information to the F1 team and driver infoboxes. In the interest of trying to limit future occurrences and to maintain consistent/correct information in the infoboxes, while still allowing for the inclusion of "up to the nanosecond" information, what do people think of the idea of updating the F1 team and driver infoboxes and {{ Formula One teams}} such that between now and "sometime early in 2009", they display both the 2008 and 2009 information? Here's the kind of thing I'm thinking of:
Full name | Red Bull Racing |
---|---|
Base | Milton Keynes, United Kingdom |
Team principal/s |
![]() |
2008 season | |
Race drivers |
![]() ![]() |
Test drivers |
![]() |
Chassis | Red Bull RB4 |
Engine | Renault RS27 |
Tyres | Bridgestone |
2009 season | |
Race drivers |
![]() ![]() |
Test drivers |
![]() |
Chassis | TBA |
Engine | Renault |
Tyres | Bridgestone |
Formula One World Championship Career | |
Debut | 2005 Australian Grand Prix |
Latest race | 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix |
etc |
Nationality
![]() | |
Formula One World Championship career | |
---|---|
2008 team | Scuderia Toro Rosso |
2008 car # | 15 |
2009 team | Red Bull Racing |
2009 car # | TBA |
Races | 26 |
Championships | 0 |
Wins | 1 |
etc |
Thoughts? DH85868993 ( talk) 14:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I've updated {{ Formula One teams}}, {{ F1 driver}} and all the driver articles. I'll do the team template and articles tomorrow unless someone beats me to it. DH85868993 ( talk) 13:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyone knows exactly when was the pit exit extended from Senna S to Curva do Sol? 1997? - oahiyeel talk 17:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Damon Hill has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 02:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
With the chances of Prodrive entering F1 now becoming nearly non-existant, do we really need the Prodrive F1 article anymore? I think it'd be better to simply merge the information of their proposal back into Prodrive. This would also require the deletion of the Template:Prodrive F1 as it too is completely useless now. Thoughts? The359 ( talk) 22:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see the need for a merge back into Prodrive - there is information there worth keeping in there - it's a good sized start article - if it was a two-line stub, then yes, I'd see the point of deleting but there is content worth keeping in there. All I would do is change the lead from: "Prodrive F1 Team is the name of a proposed Formula One team to be run by Prodrive." to "Prodrive F1 Team was the name of a proposed Formula One team to be run by Prodrive." - with a little bit at the end of an article IMO, I can't really see the need of merging back. I don't know if we have precedent on this, but surely teams that even don't make it to the F1 grid but have some history (or even were simply proposed) have some notability? D.M.N. ( talk) 09:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Several things have been brought up above. I'm with the consensus that:
I'd personally prefer Prodrive and Phoenix Finance to stay as standalone articles, however, I'm happy to merge if consensus suggests otherwise. D.M.N. ( talk) 11:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
This reminds me. Who thinks the Ligier article should be split so that the F1 side is in one seperate article? IMO, it looks a mess. D.M.N. ( talk) 11:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
An IP editor has added an (incomplete) list of Ferrari World Champions into Template:Scuderia Ferrari (corrupting the "Former drivers" link in the process) and transcluded the template into some of those drivers' articles. Do we want to keep the list of WDCs in the template (noting that we don't have such a list in the McLaren or Lotus templates)? If so, I'll complete the list, fix the link and transclude the template into all the relevant articles. DH85868993 ( talk) 13:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I know we've discussed this before, can't remember what the decision was, but given that we seem to be using official names for races now, I propose that we sort out the mess we currently have regarding Grands Prix held in the United States.
Currently we have articles for the United States Grand Prix, United States Grand Prix East, United States Grand Prix West and the Las Vegas Grand Prix. In my view, we ought to be sticking to the official names instead of grouping them in unofficial arrangements. I shall summarise my points for clarity.
Given that we are not having an article called 2009 United Arab Emirates Grand Prix and are instead deferring to the official title of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, I propose the following.
I'd like to hear any thoughts on the above. Readro ( talk) 20:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
With regard to the abbreviations, I think a three-letter code would be more consistent with all the other codes. We currently have no two-letter codes at all, even for Great Britain, which is GBR not GB. I also think some consistency with WP:AOWR would be a good thing. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 14:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm slightly worried by a lack of responses because I want to make sure I have consensus on this scheme. I'd quite like to get the process started by the weekend but I'd like to make sure I have consensus first. I'd value any opinions. Readro ( talk) 16:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
i oppose this change. Loosmark ( talk) 19:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
because what you write isn't true. for example this: "The only race to ever officially hold the title "United States Grand Prix - East", was held at Watkins Glen. This was for one year, and the "East" bit was just a tagline to differentiate it from the Long Beach Grand Prix, which incidentally was officially the "Long Beach Grand Prix".
it wasn't for one year, it was for 3 years, the Watkins Glen race was:
1976 "XIXth United States Grand Prix-East"
1977 "XXth United States Grand Prix-East"
1979 "XXIInd United States Grand Prix-East"
"The "West" naming was completely unofficial." not true either. official names for Long Beach races:
1976 "1st United States Grand Prix - West"
1977 "IInd United States Grand Prix - West"
1978 "IIIrd United States Grand Prix - West"
1979 "IVth United States Grand Prix - West"
Loosmark ( talk) 08:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
these "official" programmes (made by whom?) aren't a reliable source at all. check on the official(!) Formula 1 website:
http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1976/
http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1977/
http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1978/
and so on. Loosmark ( talk) 10:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
"yeah right. the Official Formula One website is wrong... another realiable webpage:
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/raceresults1977.html
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/raceresults1978.html
i'm sorry but showing some webpage with flyers isn't nearly enough when respectable webpages and even the official Formula 1 webpage use USA East and USA West GP. Loosmark ( talk) 10:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Can't we set up the abreviations discussed above (before the 14th) in the relevant templates and boxes, maybe as the official page name, and make the "common names" redirects to those pages? Put both names in bold in the lead? Rather than engaging in potentially endless cycles over whose sources are more reliable? Apterygial talk stalk insane idea 11:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Here are more sources. Someone has put up a website with the inside of the programmes as well.
Readro ( talk) 17:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I have the Motor Sport 1980s archive CD, which may well have a different set of naming conventions. I'm too busy now to check all of the races, but I will do when I have some free time (please feel free to remind me if I forget ;) ).-- Diniz (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link).Years | Watkins Glen | Long Beach | Detroit | Caesars Palace | Dallas | Phoenix | Indianapolis |
1959-1975 | United States GP | ||||||
1976-1980 | United States GP | United States GP West | |||||
1981 | United States GP West | Caesars Palace GP | |||||
1982 | United States GP West | Detroit GP | Caesars Palace GP | ||||
1983 | United States GP West | Detroit GP | |||||
1984 | Detroit GP | United States GP* | |||||
1985-1988 | Detroit GP | ||||||
1989-1991 | United States GP | ||||||
2000-2007 | United States GP |
I've just gone round and standardised the race leads, as quite frankly some of them were in a state. I'm planning to work on the 2008 race reports when my Autocourse 2008-09 comes through! Does the standard lead look OK - does anyone disagree with the changes? Thanks, D.M.N. ( talk) 18:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I've finally got around to reading some of them (better late than never?) The only minor change I would suggest would be to remove the word "car" from the "finished second" part, e.g. in 2008 Australian Grand Prix, I would change "Nick Heidfeld finished second in a BMW Sauber car" to just "Nick Heidfeld finished second in a BMW Sauber". But apart from that I think they're fine. DH85868993 ( talk) 13:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
What do we want to use as the "country code" for the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix in results tables etc? "ABU", per {{ F1GP}}? Or something else? DH85868993 ( talk) 01:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Since there are a few different suggestions, let's have a vote (in time-honoured fashion):
Abbreviation | Support |
ABD | LeaveSleaves, Bretonbanquet, oahiyeel |
ABU | Bretonbanquet, Apterygial, Chubbennaitor, Readro, D.M.N., Diniz |
ADB | |
ADH | |
EAD |
I've populated the table based on the above discussion. Please feel free to make any corrections and/or add other suggestions you may have. (oahiyeel, I wasn't sure whether you preferred ABD or EAD, so I put your name against both). The lack of my name in the table indicates that I don't really care what the abbreviation is (just that we decide on one :-) DH85868993 ( talk) 09:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I notice that the "List of winners" tables in a few of the "<country> Grand Prix" articles (e.g. French Grand Prix, Canadian Grand Prix) have been updated to list the 2009 race as "Not held" or "Cancelled". Isn't a bit premature to be declaring that races "weren't held" in 2009? I recognise that we're not expecting there to be a French or Canadian Grand Prix in 2009, but they haven't "not been held" yet, if you take my point. On a related topic, for non-current races, do we really need/want a row at the top of the winners table declaring that the race wasn't held for the years after the last running (e.g. "2009-1986 Not held" in the Dutch Grand Prix article)? Noting that such rows will need to be updated every year. My thought would be to fill gaps in the table with "Not held" or "Cancelled" or whatever, but just leave the last running of the race as the top row of the table. DH85868993 ( talk) 02:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
This talk page is getting a little long with a number of inactive sections... Do we have an auto-archiver, or has it been done manually? - oahiyeel talk 02:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
If I'm to be honest I prefer manual archiving. WP:F1 isn't the most active project in the world, and, especially over the winter not many people start discussions. I think if we did start auto-archiving, important discussions over 30+ days that haven't reached consensus will be archived. For a project like WP:F1, I prefer manual archiving so we can decide for ourselves what's resolved and whatnot. D.M.N. ( talk) 16:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The above article has now been listed for Peer Review here. Feel free to converge on the article in large numbers and tell me what a doofus I am for writing such a crap article (I think that's what a PR is...) Apterygial talk stalk insane idea 11:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I notice that in many of the race report articles, the top row of the points tables in the "Standings after the race" section are bolded. Is that necessary? I've removed the bolding from a few articles, but I thought I'd check there was consensus before doing the rest (since there are quite a few). I think I know how the bolding originated - I think these "Standings after the race" tables were first added to a couple of late-season articles where the championships had already been decided, and the bolding was intended to identify the Champions. And then when tables were added to other articles, the formatting was copied. So I guess a supplementary question is: Do we want to retain the bolding for races where the Champions have already been decided? (I'd probably recommend against that, as it might cause confusion in the future). DH85868993 ( talk) 08:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
An editor has recently created Cooper T43 as a redirect to Patsy Burt. Despite the fact that the Patsy Burt article contains a photo of a T43, I think the redirect is inappropriate, because plenty of other more famous drivers (e.g. Stirling Moss, Jack Brabham, etc) also drove T43s. Does anyone the knowledge/resources and enthusiasm to convert the redirect into (at least a stub) article? Or should I nominate the redirect for deletion? DH85868993 ( talk) 00:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
There is an error with the name. Now the article is "Circuito Permanente de Jerez" (Jerez Permanent Circuit). That is a old name, using for a few years to diferenciate this circuit to
the Urban circuit on the South of the city. They using "Circuito Permanente de Alta Velocidad de Jerez" (High speed permanent circuit of Jerez) too. The Urban circuit is not exist now, and the Circuit is called "Circuito de Jerez" just.
the Here is the official web,
here a page with info of the city hall and
this is a last info in the most popular newspaper of the city (in the first line "Todo está listo en el Circuito de Jerez para albergar la resolución de la primera edición del campeonato internacional Superleague Formula."). Therefore should be moved to
Circuito de Jerez. --
Mao Zaluchi
(
talk)
18:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Can someone more technically inclined than I write a section at the above article explaining the differences between the tyres (i.e. wet, extreme wet, intermediates, soft dry, hard dry etc.). I'm writing the 2008 race reports at the moment and I don't really know what I can link to and not have to superficially explain the differences in the reports. Cheers in advance, Apterygial talk stalk insane idea 11:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Well dry are either hard-hard, soft-option; intermediate-wet; wet-extreme wet; extreme wet-doesn't exist. Chubb enna itor 18:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion on Donington Park's talk page about the new layout and a new map for us. Chubb enna itor 18:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I recently came across this section of a website, which has a wide selction of official promotional posters for old Grands Prix. I was wondering if, in your opinion, an official event poster would make a suitable addition to a high-standard Grand Prix article ( these two, for instance), and if they would be covered by a claim of fair use. Any thoughts?-- Diniz (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
I noticed this recent change to the Formula One World Champion succession box in Kimi Räikkönen. Personally, I think it was better the way it was, i.e. I think it makes more sense to link the whole term "Formula One World Champion" to the List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions article. What do others think? (Similar changes have been made to Fernando Alonso and Alain Prost). DH85868993 ( talk) 04:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
This change will be made. If I change the boxes would you prefer (a) World Champion or World Drivers Champion or (b) Formula One or Formula One linked to season year? Opinions sought. Britmax ( talk) 10:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)