![]() | 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 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Someone has added a pitstop column to this race report [1]. It's late and I'm going to bed, so I can't be bothered to go and find out if this was something people agreed to or not. Thought I'd bring it here. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 23:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
In the driver's results tables it has the letters TD when they participated in Free Practices. With this change on the season articles being made with just FP drivers in the last column, it is now inconsistent, meaning that we may need to change all of the driver result tables. What do you think? SAS1998― Talk 17:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a courtesy message to inform the members of this project that I have nominated Portal:Sports for featured portal status. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports. The featured portal criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Please feel free to weigh in. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello everyone... I have stupid issue so please help. I am editing Croatian pages about F1 and came to strange GP naming - Detroit GP, Dallas GP, Caesars Palace GP... And than I started to investigate the problem and realized that on official Formula 1 site, this GP's doesn't exist, they are in fact: USA EAST GP, US GP and LAS VEGAS GP.
Here is what I discovered:
Caesars Palace GP named on wiki, but on F1 is Las Vegas GP
[1]
[2]
Detroit GP named on wiki, but on F1 is USA east GP
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] US GP
[7]
[8]
[9]
Dallas GP named on wiki, but on F1 is US GP
[10]
Can I replace the naming with the official one when I will be updating the pages?
Andycro (
talk) 19:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I've nominated the article for GrandPrix+ (Saward's online magazine) for deletion. Please leave any comments at the discussion page. Muchas gracias. QueenCake ( talk) 18:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
An IP has been adding copious amounts of flaggage to F1 team infoboxes [2] – as far as I was aware, we don't have flags in these infoboxes, but I thought I'd check here first. He/she has made some decent edits too, incidentally. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 20:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Some of you may be interested in (or horrified by) this: List of achievements by Ayrton Senna. Is this something that should exist? Bretonbanquet ( talk) 19:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep the important stuff on Senna's page - easier to stop it growing like the proverbial if it's there. 4u1e ( talk) 01:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Formula One race reports, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Formula One races. The nomination also proposes a similar renaming for the 64 subcategories: YYYY Formula One race reports → YYYY Formula One races.
If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello folks. Just noticed that we have a blank row in our Importance Scale guidelines relating to season articles. I'm wondering whether we want to populate this or not. If so, I propose the following:
Anyway, if anyone has a burning desire to be heard let it be now. Of course, as I intimated above, I am perfectly happy for this line to be struck entirely and leave all season articles up for individual discussion, but I find that without some structure the importance ratings do tend to creep upward over time. Pyrop e 22:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Seems fair. Provided 1982 can have a high rating. :) 4u1e ( talk) 01:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I have slaved away at this article for two days. I need a second opinion on it. Spa-Franks ( talk) 23:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm currently undertaking the mammoth (and possibly foolhardy) task of standardising race reports. So far I've done 3. Only 878 to go! Anyway, I've come across the 1950 Swiss Grand Prix, which has an "entry list" table as well as the qualifying and race classification tables. However, in the entry list table are 4 drivers who didn't even attempt to qualify - Peter Whitehead, Franco Rol, Reg Parnell and Rudi Fischer. This race isn't counted as an entry on any of their own pages, however on Parnell's and Fischer's, there's a "DNA", presumably standing for "did not attend". There's no source for the entry list, and the only other entry list I've found (on Chicane F1) doesn't have those 4 drivers. So basically I'm asking what we do to clarify it - do we remove them from the entry list, find the source that User:Piniricc65 used to add the table in April 2006, or just add DNA to the other two drivers' pages (for consistency)? Also in that case we should probably add them to the qualifying classification table as DNAs. Allypap81 ( talk) 11:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed that the Hungarian Grand Prix article does not have a lead? -- Falcadore ( talk) 01:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
FYI, Category:Formula One magazines has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I posted this on the Sauber talk page a month ago but decided to put it here as well (in a slightly modified form) to get some opinions:
While the Sauber article claims that the team changed its name to BMW Sauber before the 2006 season, the information on F1.com (see links) does not match this claim. The 2006 constructors' championship standings display the team as Sauber-BMW, meaning that the constructor name was still Sauber at that point, while BMW engines were used. For the 2007 season, the constructor name has become just BMW, with no mention of the Sauber name at all. This becomes BMW Sauber in 2008 and the same name is used in 2009. What happens after that is mentioned in the article, as the team continues to be known as BMW Sauber in 2010, in spite of BMW's withdrawal.
While teams and constructors are distinct entities (although not to the same extent as a few decades ago), taking these changes into account is important, at least in the constructors' championship tables each season (the constructor is currently listed as BMW Sauber in the 2006 and 2007 season articles).
There are also similar cases with some other constructors. The constructor previously listed as RBR-Renault became Red Bull Racing-Renault in the F1.com championship standings as well as TV graphics in 2011 (the only difference is that F1.com uses a hyphen unlike the TV graphics). Super Aguri Honda was sometimes listed as just Aguri Honda in the TV graphics although this variation is not used on F1.com. YuckieDuck ( talk) 21:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I propose that we split Ferrari 412T into Ferrari 412T1 and Ferrari 412T2, and Ferrari F310 into Ferrari F310 and Ferrari F310B. Although it is standard practice here to include evolutions of the same car within a single article, I believe that in these two cases the second-named car is an evolution in name only, and the current "combined" articles are a potential source of confusion, given that all the cars are usually treated as separate entities elsewhere.— Midgrid (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello everyone this is my first day, and I've just finished an article on the BRM P48/57 and the car information table is showing up as text code. I followed the infobox: racingcar template, and I cannot for the life of my figure out what I've done wrong. Thanks in advance. Whatisdeletrazdoing ( talk) 03:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
There is now an WP:IRC channel for collaboration between editors in various sports WikiProjects. It's located at #wikipedia-en-sports connect. Thanks Secret account 03:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor has been editing the "Drivers and Constructors" tables in numerous F1 season summary articles in an apparent attempt to minimise the number of times each driver appears in the table, e.g. in this edit to the 1991 article they have changed:
Entrant | Constructor | Chassis | Engine | Tyre | No | Driver | Rounds |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Footwork- Porsche |
A11C FA12 |
Porsche 3512 3.5 V12 | G | 9 |
![]() |
1-6 |
10 |
![]() |
1-4 | |||||
![]() |
5-6 | ||||||
Footwork- Ford | FA12C | Ford Cosworth DFR 3.5 V8 | 9 |
![]() |
7-16 | ||
10 |
![]() |
7-8 | |||||
![]() |
9-16 |
to:
Entrant | Constructor | Chassis | Engine | Tyre | No | Driver | Rounds |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Footwork- Porsche |
A11C FA12 |
Porsche 3512 3.5 V12 | G | 9 |
![]() |
1-6 |
Footwork- Ford | FA12C | Ford Cosworth DFR 3.5 V8 | 7-16 | ||||
Footwork- Porsche |
A11C FA12 |
Porsche 3512 3.5 V12 | 10 |
![]() |
1-4 | ||
Footwork- Ford | FA12C | Ford Cosworth DFR 3.5 V8 | 9-16 | ||||
Footwork- Porsche |
A11C FA12 |
Porsche 3512 3.5 V12 |
![]() |
5-6 | |||
Footwork- Ford | FA12C | Ford Cosworth DFR 3.5 V8 | 7-8 |
Is this desirable? DH85868993 ( talk) 03:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I'm wondering why the test drivers on the season pages have been removed. It's not the most important piece of information, but it's still relevant and I don't see how removing information from Wikipedia improves it. How am I going to know what test drivers a team had in a season now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.88 ( talk) 11:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
As you may be aware, there's been quite a bit of discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2015_Formula_One_season about whether there is yet enough concrete information about the 2015 season to have an article about it. All but two of the seasons since 2007 have also been nominated for deletion at least once when the article was created some time in advance of the season's start ( 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014). To save this happening again and again and again, editors have suggested that it would be helpful if WikiProject Formula One discussed some guidelines about how much information should be required and how concrete that information should be, before a new season's article is created. Some concrete examples that have come up, which might be a starting point for discussion but which certainly aren't intended as exhaustive or even necessary topics.
Over to you. Dricherby ( talk) 12:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Your suspicions about why the article was kept this time are completely wrong for the simple reason that AfD is not a majority vote. The article was kept because the closing administrator thought that the arguments given showed that the article is sufficiently compliant with Wikipedia policies. In this case, the admin left quite a detailed message about how they came to their decision. In theory, a single well-argued "keep" can overturn a hundred "deletes" that aren't based on policy (or vice-versa).
If contracted races are enough, I'm not sure why you think the 2015 article should have been deleted: the Monaco GP is contracted to be held until 2020, which you just said is enough to create every season article until then. Note that deletion should not be used as an alternative to page improvement: we shouldn't, in general, delete a page that should exist, just because the current version is bad. Also note that, if a rumour is widely reported, it can be notable and thus deserving of coverage in Wikipedia – the yeti is an obvious example. (Obviously, I'm not claiming that the alleged McLaren–Honda deal has anything like as much coverage as the yeti, just that there is a scale of notability of rumours.) Dricherby ( talk) 09:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Lotus Racing has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
There's a discussion in progress at WP:MOTOR about the inclusion of "Major Race Results" tables in racing circuit articles. The emerging consensus there is in favour of such tables. I note that this disagrees with an earlier consensus of this project that F1 winners lists should not be included in circuit articles. Anyone with views on the matter is welcome to contribute to the discussion at WP:MOTOR. DH85868993 ( talk) 02:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I think a separate article needs to be made on the 2013 Pirelli tire test controversy involving Mercedes, Red Bull and Ferrari. Daniels Renault Sport ( talk) 14:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
What's the score with regard to who is included in these categories? Right now we have DNQers and DNSers but not all Friday testers. Some categories include drivers who raced for, and others say drove for. Was there a consensus or is it just the typical jumble? Bretonbanquet ( talk) 23:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
There are discussions that I have recently contributed to in regard to the 107% rule which, although it is not highly important, I do believe it is something that needs to be considered. If anybody would like to give their opinion on the Table of violations part, and the What to do when qualifying times are disallowed part then please do so! SAS1998― Talk 21:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This editor is altering references to the F1 team to link to the more general Mercedes in motorsport page. Is this right? Britmax ( talk) 11:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering about this article, not least the apparent spelling error in the title. But also whether or not it should be merged into the race article, or somewhere else. I'm really not sure this chap is notable in his own right, per WP:1E. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 23:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the Lotus Renault GP team of the 2011 season was and should be treated as being the same team as the Lotus F1 team of 2012 onwards, not the same team as Renault until 2010 and earlier. It does take some work to do this editing, but that transformal year from Renault to Lotus I think from the team's side was more intended to be linked to Lotus than to Renault, with the livery and the national registration and so on, and Renault the French car company acctually having sold its part in the team. Do you have any thoughts on this? Outer Image ( talk) 11:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe that Lotus Renault GP's 2011 season should remain covered by Renault in Formula One and Renault Grand Prix results rather than Lotus F1 - as a general rule, we transition to a new article when the constructor name changes, and in 2011 LRGP's cars were still known as "Renaults". As Bretonbanquet has identified, FORIX/Autosport include LRGP's 2011 results under "Renault" (as, incidentally, does ChicaneF1). Here is the discussion we had about Lotus and Renault at the end of 2011. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Thought I might post this here, because there are a few issues at Port Imperial Street Circuit that need attention. As there are only two editors with opposing opinions, we need some new voices in the discussion.
The current issue relates to details of promotional runs that were performed at the circuit. The user who supports the inclusion of these edits believes that they are important because they constitute "media coverage about an officially un-named, proposed street circuit", and their inclusion is therefore justified.
On the oher hand, I am opposing their inclusion for two reasons: adding them is inconsistent with other circuit pages; the closest thing i can find is a 'Reception' section added to the articles for the newest circuits on the calendars, but these only offer the opinions of drivers after they have actually driven the circuit in racing cars. Secondly, and more importantly, the proposed edits are essentially free of any actual content. This is how they read:
To me, this is essentially saying "these drivers visited the site on these dates for public relations" and nothing more, which I don't think is an appropriate inclusion.
Since we're at logger-heads over this one, I'm inviting everyone to come over and weigh in on the debate. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 12:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Should the results of BMW Sauber be combined with the Sauber results? Daniels Renault Sport ( talk) 14:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I propose to merge this page with Team Lotus (2010-11), because they refer to the same team. Tony Fernandes acquired all rights of Team Lotus (historical rights, naming rights and image). Team Lotus will come back in 2011 (in spanish).
"A little over 1 year later, on September 24, 2010, it was announced that Tony Fernandes (Lotus Racing) had acquired the name rights of Team Lotus from David Hunt, marking the official re-birth of Team Lotus in Formula One".
I know this has been discussed, but in my opinion Team Lotus (1958-1994) and Team Lotus (2010-11) refer to the same team. -- Laln93 ( talk) 20:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Noting the recent creation of Dallara F191 and Dallara F192, I see that we have currently have some inconsistency regarding the naming of these cars - some articles refer to them as "191/192", some as "F191/F192" and some as "BMS-191/BMS-192". External sources are similarly divided - StatsF1 calls them 191 and 192, FORIX and ChicaneF1 call them "BMS-191" and "BMS-192" whereas grandprix.com refers to the 1992 car as a "F192". I'm happy to make all the articles consistent once we reach a consensus on the correct names. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
StatsF1 | FORIX | ChicaneF1 | grandprix.com | Higham | Autocourse | Hodges |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3087 | 3087 | 3087 | ||||
188 | BMS-188 | BMS-188 | F188 | F188 | F188 | BMS 188 |
189 | BMS-189 | BMS-189 | F189 | F189 | F189 | BMS 189 |
190 | BMS-190 | BMS-190 | F190 | 190 | BMS 190 | |
191 | BMS-191 | BMS-191 | F190 | F191 | 191 | 191 |
192 | BMS-192 | BMS-192 | F192 | F192 | 192 | 192 |
I don't understand why Fernando Alonso's 2009 Formula One season results are split up? Shouldn't their just be one? Daniels Renault Sport ( talk) 17:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Currently there are two articles about the 1961-62 F1 BRM:s. 1) BRM P48/57 about the 1961 Climax powered car and 2) BRM P57 about the later BRM V8 powered car. According to the BRM Saga Vol 2 by Doug Nye the correct BRM designations for the cars were "P57" and "P578". These were variants of the same chassis with different motors, and both have later been called "P57" causing some confusion. "P48/57" is just an unofficial name sometimes used for the "real" P57. I have edited both articles and info boxes to reflect this, calling the earlier type "P57-Climax" and "Climax powered P57", and the 1962 type "P57-V8" and "V8 powered P57", following the example of Doug Nye. IMHO the title of the "BRM P48/57" article should be changed to "BRM P57-Climax". The title for the "BRM P57" article should be "BRM P57-V8". Kurt kuurna ( talk) 05:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor has started adding dates, number of laps and race distances to the winners lists in the Grand Prix articles. Statistics creep? Do we really need it when that data is covered in individual race articles? -- Falcadore ( talk) 02:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Trexhunter (aka Mr Unexplained Random Changes to race articles) is back, having edited 2013 Monaco Grand Prix. Please be aware. Britmax ( talk) 08:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I have to go to work soon but have just noticed the changes made on this list. Do we really need "La Condamine" (it's the area around the harbour, in case you were wondering) next to Monaco? I would go through them but as I say work beckons. Britmax ( talk) 07:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone! In approximately 15 minutes from now, the 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix article will be today's featured article, displayed on the front page. The article has been semi-protected, but can I ask the members of this WikiProject to keep an eye out for vandalism and/or unwarranted changes over the next 24 hours? I will do my best to keep track of what is happening, but I will be out of the house with no internet connection for most of tomorrow. Thanks,— Midgrid (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
An editor seems to be changing the location of this circuit from Barcelona to Montmelo. is this right? Britmax ( talk) 20:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
An editor is adding this to driver articles. I feel that this is an unnecessary duplication of information already in the career summaries. For some drivers with long successful careers this would make already long articles even longer and harder to load. I have left a note on their talk page asking them to stop until the opinion of this project is known either way. Britmax ( talk) 09:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
This user has renamed themselves User:Speedy Question Mark. No idea why, just thought you should know. Britmax ( talk) 18:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Is their really a need to include TD to their Weekends as Test driver in their Formula One results as their not results as they never entered the actual race. Just a thought because some drivers articles have them and others don't even thought that I know that the driver was part of Friday practice. Daniels Renault Sport ( talk) 17:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated Template:Female Formula One drivers for deletion. Please share your thoughts at the discussion. Spyder_Monkey ( Talk) 23:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
FYI, it has been proposed that Danny Sullivan be moved to Danny Sullivan (racing driver). You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Danny Sullivan#Proposed move. DH85868993 ( talk) 08:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
An editor is changing references to the Circuit de Catalunya in season articles to the above. Anyone know of a good reason why this would be done? Britmax ( talk) 21:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Found the reason now. I wish people would leave edit summaries and not just change things. Britmax ( talk) 21:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
FYI, Port Imperial Street Circuit and Grand Prix of America have been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 04:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
An IP is making unexplained random changes to motor racing articles again, and while sometimes I would revert them systematically this week I have other things to attend to and cannot spare the time. Britmax ( talk) 15:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Mr pointless changes is back today.
Britmax (
talk) 15:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Now we have 2.30.199.128 ( talk · contribs) recording little changes on pages in recent seasons. Just to keep an eye out. Craig (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
This is an important matter that needs to be resolved. A consensus has supposedly been achieved but a lot of season overview pages and a lot of individual Grands Prix pages don't act whithin these supposed consensus. I think a grand prix should carry the flag of the continent/country/region/city it is named for. After all there is a reason why it is named after that particular location. There are indeed a few exceptions where there is nog flag for that location like the Pacific GP, Pescara GP, the upcoming GP of the Americas, or even the Ceasar's Palace GP. In those examples the only option is to show the flag of the country in which the Grand Prix took place. But when the locations named in the Grands Prix's names have their own flag like San Marino, Europe(and the Flag of Europe IS used to represent the whole of Europe; it was adopted before the founding of the EU) and Luxembourg(and even Abu Dhabi too), those flags should be shown.
Yes Coca-Cola 600 is a different sport than Formula One, but it very strongly illustrates the point being made. The point was getting you to understand that wikipedia does not apply flags on the basis of a race's name. There are much more important considerations. Formula One races have NOT always been named after locations, you just think they are. And sometimes they are named "for fun". When a nation hosts more than one grand prix they look up a bunch of options. In Germany they've used European Grand Prix for race #2, but not exclusively. Sometimes they used Luxembourg. Similarly in France they've named their second race Swiss Grand Prix, and the Italians named their second race the San Marino Grand Prix. They do this because it's a better option than say French Summer Grand Prix or French Winter Grand Prix, although they HAVE picked seasons like Summer/Winter for when there was more than one Swedish Grand Prix. The United States when naming their second races have gone all over the shop. They've used city names, they've used compass directions like West and East. They've used variations on how you say the countries name, like Grand Prix of the Americas, and at least once, they've used the name of a Hotel! Additionally you mention the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix needs to be changed, but the flag they have always used for the event is that of the country the United Arab Emirates, so you can see by your own standards you are shouting so loudly they are not co-operating with what you believe.
So really the only race that co-operates with your belief is Europe, so essentially you are asking for an exemption to this one race? But, and this is important for you to understand, really really important, they are just names. You are giving importance to subject that just doesn't exist, so please stop clinging to false assumptions. 121.222.226.116 ( talk) 16:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
AUS![]() |
AUS![]() |
I've spotted my name being used here. I did say that flag usage should be consistent, but consistency is not mandatory. We are not obliged to be consistent across a set of articles, although it's usually helpful. That's the first thing. The second thing is that some people keep losing track of what consensus was achieved: we agreed to switch the flag from the race name to the circuit in the calendar. Nothing to do with the results tables. I suspect that was because there was too little chance of getting an agreement on it.
We will not be "reinstating flags everywhere". The flag deletionists will be all over us. Plus it makes pages look awful. Plus any number of other reasons. I think we can reduce our new proposal to two points:
1. Remove flags in driver and constructor results tables in season articles.
2. Remove the flag above the infoboxes in a) generic race articles, e.g. British Grand Prix, and b) specific race articles, e.g. 2012 British Grand Prix.
If there's a consensus for this, we can do it. If there isn't a consensus for it, we should probably shut up about it. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 20:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It's been a while, and I see a weak consensus for the first proposal and no consensus for the second. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 19:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I have to go to bed soon but a watch should be kept on this contributor. The only edit of theirs I have found to have a source quotes Autosport on the return of the Mexican GP next season, and even this is footnoted as awaiting contract and confirmation. I'm afraid we have another extra work magnet here. Britmax ( talk) 21:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Someone has added that Kimi is going to be a Ferrari driver. They have done this, understandably, because the BBC have said so. If you look at the BBC article it says "the team have not announced this but an an announcement is expected imminently". This is obviously the BBC flapping to beat Facetwitter to the punch. What's the point? Britmax ( talk) 09:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I have successfully created File:Singapore street circuit v3.svg, the new Singapore GP map, without the turn 10 chicane. I have added it to / updated Marina Bay Street Circuit, 2013 Singapore Grand Prix, List of Formula One circuits, and Singapore Grand Prix. Where else does it need to go? SAS1998― Talk 21:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Following discussion exists on the 2014 Formula One season's talk page:
So they have just released the calendar and honestly I reckon there could be some changes in it Matt294069 ( talk) 08:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
That does indeed seem likely given how much to-ing and fro-ing we've seen with races being agreed and dropped just in the last couple of months. To that end I think it would have been quite prudent to keep the reference to the New Jersey situation on there in the 'Changes' section until we have a final, confirmed calendar at the end of the year saying it will not happen. Stranger things have happened than races finding funding to get them back on track and even if that doesn't eventually occur, it's still noteworthy to state that a major project to get an F1 race to happen there is in place and had been approved, with those having invested in it thus far presumably still attempting to resurrect it. Recall that until yesterday we had no realistic intonation that there would be a Mexican GP next year but that is now on the article, although the actual likelihood of that occurring has been widely questioned. Until the calendar is finalised, I think it's worth including a reference to every race which has at some point been announced by Bernie as having a firm contract for 2014 on the changes section. BroSwerve ( talk) 00:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing how this draft calendar is speculation. The references given make it clear that this calendar was shown to team principals for feedback. If it was some kind of hoax, the principals would have spotted it immediately. They wouldn't accept a draft calendar for review from anyone who was not in a position to hand them that draft calendar.
To address Txv1's argument, we have never needed an independent statement from race organisers to verify a calendar being legitimate - only to verify the inclusion of that race before a calendar is published. You want the calendar to confirm the race and the race to confirm the calendar.
Txv1, I suggest you read the practices you cite a little more carefully. In the past, we have only sought confirmation of a race joining the calendar from the event organisers when a calendar has not been published. When the calendar is published, that is considered confirmation enough. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 20:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
A publication is either reliable as a source, or not reliable. You cannot pick and choose which articles from that source are reliable and which are not, especially when your argument is that we cannot be sure of the sources used by the publication. While it is true that we cannot demonstrate that the calendar given to Autosport was genuine, it is equally true that we cannot demonstrate that the calendar given to Autosport was not genuine. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 15:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I have now adressed the planned races section. I sincerely hope we can keep this lay-out without to much discussion until an official calendar is released in a couple of days. I think it's the most accurate representation of the current facts that are known. I have added some further explanation to the current American, Mexican and Spanish Grands Prix situations. I have left the Spanish Grand Prix venue as TBA on the list as there are currently conflicting reports concerning the host of the 2014 Spanish Grand Prix and we can't be certain which one it's going to be a the moment. Tvx1 ( talk) 01:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
As the official calendar for that season has now been released it no longer really relevant to discuss this any further on that season's page. Still I think its no time to shelf this matter yet. After all, the exact same situation will probably arise next year and every following year. So I think is in everybody's interest that we reach a consensus and forge that in to a guideline for the project on when to start posting a calendar on an upcoming season's page. More precisely is a draft for a calendar enough to do so? My opinion is it is not and we should wait until the official instances release the official (provisional) calendar. Tvx1 ( talk) 17:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
FYI, List of achievements by Ayrton Senna has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. For those who aren't aware, a full list of active F1-related AfDs (and PRODs, CfDs, TfDs, etc) exists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Article alerts (which is updated once a day). DH85868993 ( talk) 14:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI, it has been proposed that BRM 15 and British Racing Motors V16 be merged. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the merger discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:List of fatal Formula One accidents#Maria De Villota regarding the inclusion of de Villota on the list of fatal F1 accidents and the possible rewording of the list criteria. Please have your say. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 23:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI, 2016 Formula One season has been recreated. DH85868993 ( talk) 07:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI, Category:Monaco Grand Prix winners has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI, Template:2013 F1 Constructors Standings has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 07:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Template:2010 F1 Points System has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
DH85868993 (
talk) 11:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
An editor has moved List of Formula One records to List of Formula One constructor records. I have lodged a request for the move to be reverted, on the basis that the new name is unsuitable (as the article contains more than just constructor records). DH85868993 ( talk) 23:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Further input has been requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of achievements by Ayrton Senna. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI, the following articles have recently been created: 2014 Formula One season cars, Renault Energy F1-2014 and Red Bull RB10. Red Bull RB10 has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 06:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick heads-up, ladies and gentlemen - please be on the lookout for vandalism, particularly on the Daniil Kvyat article. It's currently got an orange lock, so changes need to be reviewed before appearing in the text, but something might slip through. Lots of people are unhappy that Toro Rosso took Kvyat over da Costa, and they're expressing it by trying to make out that Kvyat stole a seat that was rightfully da Costa's. It's been an issue on the 2014 season page, which has been semi-protected accordingly. It might also come up on the AFdC article, but I haven't seen anything (yet), and it currently remains unprotected. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 03:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI, 2014 Indian Grand Prix (a redirect to 2014 Formula One season) has been nominated for deletion (on the basis that it has been confirmed that there will be no Indian Grand Prix in 2014). You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 03:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The PURE article has been nominated for deletion after the argument at Talk:2014 Formula One season. Please have your say at the AfD page. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 23:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed a lot, But the flags on the Grand Prix articles should represent the Grand Prix itself not the country it is in, The Swiss Grand Prix was held in France a few times but was still represented under the Swiss flag as well as the Luxemburg Grand Prix being held in Germany but with the Luxemburg flag etc. The articles should represent the Grand Prix's like F1 itself does because using the Spanish flag on the European Grand Prix article would confuse the reader as it wasn't always held in Spain and even though the San Marino GP was held in Italy it was always represented under the San Marino flag and that's how readers would relate to knowing what grand prix that is. Just trying to make the articles better to understand for the readers because one of my friends who was getting into Formula One's history got confused over the Grand Prix flags and he's not stupid. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 18:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, the flag icon MOS is a guideline created by a consensus at the MOS page; editors can't just decide whether they're going to adhere to it or not, even at WikiProject level. WikiProject consensus does not overrule a MOS because the MOS is Wikipedia's consensus regarding flag usage. WikiProjects don't have any "rights" over articles. We are on the very borderline of violating the MOS with regard to using a flag icon in driver infoboxes, even though it's our consensus to use them. You don't want to know how many acres of cyberspace I used up trying to keep those flags. Secondly, you talked about using the flag the organisers used – how do you propose to determine which flag they used in the 1957 Pescara Grand Prix, for example, or any of the others The359 mentioned? Thirdly, a flag cannot directly represent an event, it's a non sequitur. It can only ever have a decorative function if the event takes place in a different country from that whose flag they're waving. With regard to your last point, I don't think the "flag of the event" has any relevance whatsoever to an encyclopedia. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 22:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Are we back here AGAIN? Flags have always been associated with geographic location because a name is just a name. You don't seem to have a problem with the Korean Grand Prix using the South Korean flag instead of an invented pretend Korea flag do you? You don't think using South Korea instead of Korea and using the European Union flag for Spain is a double standard?
Answer me this, why is using a consistent standard for ALL races instead of a made-up one based on an editors personal preferences a bad idea? --
Falcadore (
talk) 05:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Additionally a question for
Speedy Question Mark - you make this arguement as though the flags are used exclusively by the Formula One World Championship, where is the flags and infoboxes are used in a very wide variety of races - such as well... the contents of this
Category:Formula One non-Championship races. Plus Formula 2, Formula 3, Formula 3000 etc. So do you have a flag for the
Evening News Trophy ? --
Falcadore (
talk) 05:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
TLDR but in quick response: Point 1 I find puzzling – I don't refuse to admit that it's my personal preference not to have certain flags. Nowhere have I said otherwise. Regarding the MOS, no, some people have given their interpretation of the MOS, and I have given mine. I've quoted a chunk of it below (under Point 5) which directly relates to the subnational flag issue, I don't see any wriggle room in that. Nothing has been "confirmed as justified". I'm sure you don't want to leave a message at the MOS page for the MOS creators to come here and have their say? Or do you?
Point 3 - Still a mess. Where do you want to use these flags? Generic race articles? Individual race reports? Season articles (calendar / driver/constructor results tables?)? "Use the flags used by the Grands Prix themselves" – do you mean the organisers? Grands Prix can't use anything. What's so bad with having two ways to deal with flag use? They contradict each other. How exactly do you plan to prove what flags were used by race organisers in the 1950s and 1960s etc, if any? Start with the Pescara race and find me something that proves what flag was used to represent it at that time.
Point 4 – I'm quite happy to remove all the flags from above race article infoboxes, yes, that's right. I don't see the point in them and they have no purpose other than decoration. They also obviously cause confusion. You completely misunderstand my point though, as I was referring to the use of sub/supranational flags representing an event not open solely to parties from those specific areas. Last time I looked, the UK, Belgium and Australia were nations, not supranational entities. The guidelines regarding use of sub/supranational flags are different from those regarding use of national flags. I don't believe the use of the European flag constitutes "direct relevance" to an article about the European Grand Prix because it isn't a European event. It's an FIA/worldwide event that uses the name and flag of Europe as a badge of convenience, therefore carries no real relevance to anything.
Point 5 – subnational flags are used in articles about cities because that's allowed under the MOS but "Subnational flags (regions, cities, etc.) should generally be used only when directly relevant to the article. Such flags are rarely recognizable by the general public, detracting from any shorthand utility they might have, and are rarely closely related to the subject of the article. For instance, the flag of Tampa, Florida, is appropriately used on the Tampa article. However, the Tampa flag should generally not be used on articles about residents of Tampa: it would not be informative..." blah blah. How does a subnational flag's use in a race report not contravene that?
It would be worth noting that further badinage here is fairly pointless. Nothing will come of it without input from others. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 21:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
If I can just address two small points of your dead-horse-flogging exercise above: a) I have never said my only objection to your proposal is based on my personal preference, and I'd like you to strike that, along with the implication that I'm only here to bugger up your crappy proposal. If you've read any of my posts, you'd know that I have a number of objections, and they happen to coincide with my personal preference. I hope that's clear enough to you now. Furthermore, even if my opinions were solely based on personal preference, they still count every bit as much as yours do. B) Regarding your second point, you've contrived not only to misunderstand the acceptable usage of supranational flags, but you've also misunderstood what I said regarding them. I'm not quite sure how you've managed that, but I'm definitely not explaining it again. If you don't understand the objections to your wishes, well, it doesn't matter. You're just repeating yourself and you currently don't have enough support for what you want to do. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 23:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity I feel the need to ask. Your most recent objections have been based on objections that relate specifically for races like Swiss/San Marino/Luxembourg, objections based specifically on nationality. By that might I interpret you no longer have objections in regards to Europe/Detroit/Pescara et al? Or are you debating races individually, if so the argument should perhaps be subdivided to match? You see, arguing over the 1982 Swiss GP so specifically ignores completely the reasons why it was done this way in the begininning. For consistency across all races regardless of being a Formula One World Championship event or not, and to reflect the location of the event because a great many races do not have a geographic or national component to their name. You want to dismiss all of that just so you can have a San Marinese flag sit decoratively next to the words San Marino, possibly suggesting to the point the Grands Prix des Nations might be represented by a what... the UN flag and forgeting/ignoring that the European Grand Prix itself pre-dates the existance of the European Union flag. To back up what Bretonbanquet has just posted, if you have a hard time understanding the objections presented to you, it is because you misunderstand what the flags are being used for in the first instance. -- Falcadore ( talk) 18:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
That's exactly how they are represented on season articles. And have been for some time. Prisonermonkeys ( talk)\
Well Tvx1, you've gone to MOSICONS and had it stated categorically that sub and spranational flags should definately not be used, and when told about F1's overuse you get offended. Well I can only hope this brings an end to the matter. -- Falcadore ( talk) 07:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
An editor has questioned whether Template:Formula One should be converted to a navbox. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Template talk:Formula One#Convert this to a Navbox. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
There's a discussion in progress at Talk:List_of_Formula_One_driver_records#Alberto_Ascari_consecutive_wins_dilemma regarding whether or not races in which a driver/team was not entered should be counted when listing consecutive streaks, e.g. whether Alberto Ascari should be credited with 7 or 9 wins in a row in 1952-53. Please express any views you may have on the matter at the discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 22:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I've looked over the "Former" constructor navbox and Frank Williams Racing Cars are mentioned but they never was a constructor as they always used consumer chassis through the teams whole existence, In the teams later years they renamed the consumer chassis under the FW name but it was still considered consumer so why are they mentioned as a constructor. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 13:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted the addition of "McMonkey" and variations to several articles today. Please keep an eye on this as I have to go to work soon. Britmax ( talk) 12:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The Red Bull RB10 article recently went through the AfD process, and the result was that it has been kept. I have since made some extensive changes to the content, as I felt it was entirely inappropriate for the article - most of the content was given over to descriptions of the Renault engine, the one part of the car Red Bull won't actually design, and dramatic quotes from the staff about how extensive the rule changes are without any explanation of how Red Bull are addressing these changes in their design.
However, the changes in content have not gone over well with Fremintug, the user who created the article, and he keeps reverting the changes and demanding a consensus for them. He us currently suspected of being a sock of DeFacto, and his behaviour is very consistent with DeFacto's. If he is DeFacto, though, that means the process is going to be long and gruelling, so I'm hoping people can contribute to the discussion on the article talk page, quickly form a consensus, and end the nonsense before it begins (or at least gfs worse). Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 21:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
File:A1-Mobile-Network.gif I've found this logo, Was this the one used by the track. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 14:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Having some issues with an IP who insists on adding "the greatest driver ever" to Senna's article. He's modified his wording but refuses to discuss and what he's putting doesn't match the source. Would appreciate anyone who wants to help out. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 14:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Overnight, there has been an internet posting that examines the Lotus-Quantum deal and suggests that some of the people involved might not be all they seem, with allegations of fraud and other unseemly activities being thrown in. As far as I can tell, it hasn't made its way into any articles just yet, but it's taken hold on Reddit and F1 Fanatic, and it's the kind of thing that editors might rush to include in an article. After all, I once saw someone had edited the 2014 season article to say that Hyundai would enter the sport, and when I checked out the reference given, it was actually a forum post I had written suggesting it was a possibility based on certain observations.
Anyway, I am not expecting this Quantum thing to be a big deal, but I thought I should just put it out there. I remember we had some trouble back in 2009 when Sauber were to be bought out by the QADBAK investment group, but the deal fell apart after a connection was found between QADBAK and a British con artist, and the 2010 season article said as much without any proof. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 02:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
2016 Formula One season has been revived, on the basis that it shouldn't have been speedily deleted on the 4th of November because it wasn't sufficiently identical to the version which was previously deleted. I have nominated it for deletion again per WP:TOOSOON. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 00:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
FYI, an IP editor identifying himself as da Silva Ramos' grandson has provided further input regarding the driver's first name at Talk:Hernando da Silva Ramos#Name. (I thought I'd mention it here because I wasn't sure how many people would be watching the article). Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 09:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
When should the Formula One teams articles have their constructor titles changed like Marussia-Cosworth to Marussia-Ferrari for example. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 17:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion this is turning into an obsessive stats site. Anyone else want to try to stem this tide? Britmax ( talk) 12:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
There's a discussion in progress at Talk:List_of_Formula_One_driver_records#Drivers.27_Championships_without_Constructors.27_Championship regarding whether or not Kimi Räikkönen technically achieved this feat during the 2007 Formula One season. Please express any views you may have on the matter at the discussion. Thanks. Tvx1 ( talk) 15:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
While doing some unrelated research i've noticed that on the articles dealing with the 2007 Australian, Malaysia, Bahrain, Spanish, Monaco, Canadian, United States, French, British, European, Hungarian, Turkish and Italian Grands Prix McLaren isn't included in the table showing the constructors' standings after those races. This is probably due to McLaren later being disqualified from that season's Constructors' Championship later (in-between the Italian and Belgian Grands Prix to be precise). However, this articles deal with a specific day in history and should present the actual facts (e.g. official flags at that time, official circuit names on that day,... ) on that date in time. So shouldn't McLaren be included in those table labelled "Standings After the Race" as they were not yet disqualified at that point? Tvx1 ( talk) 20:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
FYI, WP:F1 no longer leads to our project page - it now leads to a disambiguation page. Likewise WT:F1 no longer leads to this page. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Should the brand new racing series FIA Formula E Championship get its own WikiProject because I've already created a few Formula E articles. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 15:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I've just become aware of List of current Formula One Grands Prix. I'm wondering whether this article is really necessary - it seems to be an amalgam of parts of List of Formula One circuits and parts of 2013 Formula One season. Thoughts? DH85868993 ( talk) 03:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree. We just need to make sure that the information on `most recent winning driver' remains easily accessible. I also think that a redirect should be put in from this (and related search terms) to List of Formula One circuits. EdwardRussell ( talk) 10:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion on the 2014 season talk page about how to organise team and driver tables in season articles now that the numbering system has changed. A preliminary consensus has been established, but honestly, the whole thing has been drowned out by the Sergey Sirotkin situation, so I think a lot of people may have missed it the first time around.
The short version is this - there are two proposals up for discussion:
You're invited to contribute at the above-listed discussion. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 06:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I notice that a "car number" column has been added to {{ F1 Drivers Standings}} (which currently contains the 2013 Drivers' Championship table, and is transcluded into 2013 Formula One season). Do we like this? (I thought I would ask here because I wasn't sure how many people would have that template on their watchlist). DH85868993 ( talk) 02:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
There has been a very long and tedious debate at Talk:2014 Formula One season with regard to the inclusion of Sergey Sirotkin on the list of 2014 F1 drivers. We would appreciate further input so that we might come to a speedy conclusion. There is a precis of the argument here. Thanks, Bretonbanquet ( talk) 16:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Entry lists have recently been added to several 1950s F1 race reports (e.g. 1952 French Grand Prix#Entries). I notice that for cars which were shared in the race, both drivers are listed in the entry list (e.g. cars 16 and 34 in the listed example). Is this correct? Or should the entry list only list the driver who started the race in that car (i.e. the car's "nominated" driver)? DH85868993 ( talk) 01:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | 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 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Someone has added a pitstop column to this race report [1]. It's late and I'm going to bed, so I can't be bothered to go and find out if this was something people agreed to or not. Thought I'd bring it here. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 23:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
In the driver's results tables it has the letters TD when they participated in Free Practices. With this change on the season articles being made with just FP drivers in the last column, it is now inconsistent, meaning that we may need to change all of the driver result tables. What do you think? SAS1998― Talk 17:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a courtesy message to inform the members of this project that I have nominated Portal:Sports for featured portal status. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports. The featured portal criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Please feel free to weigh in. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello everyone... I have stupid issue so please help. I am editing Croatian pages about F1 and came to strange GP naming - Detroit GP, Dallas GP, Caesars Palace GP... And than I started to investigate the problem and realized that on official Formula 1 site, this GP's doesn't exist, they are in fact: USA EAST GP, US GP and LAS VEGAS GP.
Here is what I discovered:
Caesars Palace GP named on wiki, but on F1 is Las Vegas GP
[1]
[2]
Detroit GP named on wiki, but on F1 is USA east GP
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] US GP
[7]
[8]
[9]
Dallas GP named on wiki, but on F1 is US GP
[10]
Can I replace the naming with the official one when I will be updating the pages?
Andycro (
talk) 19:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I've nominated the article for GrandPrix+ (Saward's online magazine) for deletion. Please leave any comments at the discussion page. Muchas gracias. QueenCake ( talk) 18:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
An IP has been adding copious amounts of flaggage to F1 team infoboxes [2] – as far as I was aware, we don't have flags in these infoboxes, but I thought I'd check here first. He/she has made some decent edits too, incidentally. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 20:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Some of you may be interested in (or horrified by) this: List of achievements by Ayrton Senna. Is this something that should exist? Bretonbanquet ( talk) 19:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep the important stuff on Senna's page - easier to stop it growing like the proverbial if it's there. 4u1e ( talk) 01:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Formula One race reports, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Formula One races. The nomination also proposes a similar renaming for the 64 subcategories: YYYY Formula One race reports → YYYY Formula One races.
If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello folks. Just noticed that we have a blank row in our Importance Scale guidelines relating to season articles. I'm wondering whether we want to populate this or not. If so, I propose the following:
Anyway, if anyone has a burning desire to be heard let it be now. Of course, as I intimated above, I am perfectly happy for this line to be struck entirely and leave all season articles up for individual discussion, but I find that without some structure the importance ratings do tend to creep upward over time. Pyrop e 22:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Seems fair. Provided 1982 can have a high rating. :) 4u1e ( talk) 01:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I have slaved away at this article for two days. I need a second opinion on it. Spa-Franks ( talk) 23:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm currently undertaking the mammoth (and possibly foolhardy) task of standardising race reports. So far I've done 3. Only 878 to go! Anyway, I've come across the 1950 Swiss Grand Prix, which has an "entry list" table as well as the qualifying and race classification tables. However, in the entry list table are 4 drivers who didn't even attempt to qualify - Peter Whitehead, Franco Rol, Reg Parnell and Rudi Fischer. This race isn't counted as an entry on any of their own pages, however on Parnell's and Fischer's, there's a "DNA", presumably standing for "did not attend". There's no source for the entry list, and the only other entry list I've found (on Chicane F1) doesn't have those 4 drivers. So basically I'm asking what we do to clarify it - do we remove them from the entry list, find the source that User:Piniricc65 used to add the table in April 2006, or just add DNA to the other two drivers' pages (for consistency)? Also in that case we should probably add them to the qualifying classification table as DNAs. Allypap81 ( talk) 11:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed that the Hungarian Grand Prix article does not have a lead? -- Falcadore ( talk) 01:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
FYI, Category:Formula One magazines has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I posted this on the Sauber talk page a month ago but decided to put it here as well (in a slightly modified form) to get some opinions:
While the Sauber article claims that the team changed its name to BMW Sauber before the 2006 season, the information on F1.com (see links) does not match this claim. The 2006 constructors' championship standings display the team as Sauber-BMW, meaning that the constructor name was still Sauber at that point, while BMW engines were used. For the 2007 season, the constructor name has become just BMW, with no mention of the Sauber name at all. This becomes BMW Sauber in 2008 and the same name is used in 2009. What happens after that is mentioned in the article, as the team continues to be known as BMW Sauber in 2010, in spite of BMW's withdrawal.
While teams and constructors are distinct entities (although not to the same extent as a few decades ago), taking these changes into account is important, at least in the constructors' championship tables each season (the constructor is currently listed as BMW Sauber in the 2006 and 2007 season articles).
There are also similar cases with some other constructors. The constructor previously listed as RBR-Renault became Red Bull Racing-Renault in the F1.com championship standings as well as TV graphics in 2011 (the only difference is that F1.com uses a hyphen unlike the TV graphics). Super Aguri Honda was sometimes listed as just Aguri Honda in the TV graphics although this variation is not used on F1.com. YuckieDuck ( talk) 21:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I propose that we split Ferrari 412T into Ferrari 412T1 and Ferrari 412T2, and Ferrari F310 into Ferrari F310 and Ferrari F310B. Although it is standard practice here to include evolutions of the same car within a single article, I believe that in these two cases the second-named car is an evolution in name only, and the current "combined" articles are a potential source of confusion, given that all the cars are usually treated as separate entities elsewhere.— Midgrid (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello everyone this is my first day, and I've just finished an article on the BRM P48/57 and the car information table is showing up as text code. I followed the infobox: racingcar template, and I cannot for the life of my figure out what I've done wrong. Thanks in advance. Whatisdeletrazdoing ( talk) 03:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
There is now an WP:IRC channel for collaboration between editors in various sports WikiProjects. It's located at #wikipedia-en-sports connect. Thanks Secret account 03:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor has been editing the "Drivers and Constructors" tables in numerous F1 season summary articles in an apparent attempt to minimise the number of times each driver appears in the table, e.g. in this edit to the 1991 article they have changed:
Entrant | Constructor | Chassis | Engine | Tyre | No | Driver | Rounds |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Footwork- Porsche |
A11C FA12 |
Porsche 3512 3.5 V12 | G | 9 |
![]() |
1-6 |
10 |
![]() |
1-4 | |||||
![]() |
5-6 | ||||||
Footwork- Ford | FA12C | Ford Cosworth DFR 3.5 V8 | 9 |
![]() |
7-16 | ||
10 |
![]() |
7-8 | |||||
![]() |
9-16 |
to:
Entrant | Constructor | Chassis | Engine | Tyre | No | Driver | Rounds |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Footwork- Porsche |
A11C FA12 |
Porsche 3512 3.5 V12 | G | 9 |
![]() |
1-6 |
Footwork- Ford | FA12C | Ford Cosworth DFR 3.5 V8 | 7-16 | ||||
Footwork- Porsche |
A11C FA12 |
Porsche 3512 3.5 V12 | 10 |
![]() |
1-4 | ||
Footwork- Ford | FA12C | Ford Cosworth DFR 3.5 V8 | 9-16 | ||||
Footwork- Porsche |
A11C FA12 |
Porsche 3512 3.5 V12 |
![]() |
5-6 | |||
Footwork- Ford | FA12C | Ford Cosworth DFR 3.5 V8 | 7-8 |
Is this desirable? DH85868993 ( talk) 03:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I'm wondering why the test drivers on the season pages have been removed. It's not the most important piece of information, but it's still relevant and I don't see how removing information from Wikipedia improves it. How am I going to know what test drivers a team had in a season now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.88 ( talk) 11:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
As you may be aware, there's been quite a bit of discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2015_Formula_One_season about whether there is yet enough concrete information about the 2015 season to have an article about it. All but two of the seasons since 2007 have also been nominated for deletion at least once when the article was created some time in advance of the season's start ( 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014). To save this happening again and again and again, editors have suggested that it would be helpful if WikiProject Formula One discussed some guidelines about how much information should be required and how concrete that information should be, before a new season's article is created. Some concrete examples that have come up, which might be a starting point for discussion but which certainly aren't intended as exhaustive or even necessary topics.
Over to you. Dricherby ( talk) 12:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Your suspicions about why the article was kept this time are completely wrong for the simple reason that AfD is not a majority vote. The article was kept because the closing administrator thought that the arguments given showed that the article is sufficiently compliant with Wikipedia policies. In this case, the admin left quite a detailed message about how they came to their decision. In theory, a single well-argued "keep" can overturn a hundred "deletes" that aren't based on policy (or vice-versa).
If contracted races are enough, I'm not sure why you think the 2015 article should have been deleted: the Monaco GP is contracted to be held until 2020, which you just said is enough to create every season article until then. Note that deletion should not be used as an alternative to page improvement: we shouldn't, in general, delete a page that should exist, just because the current version is bad. Also note that, if a rumour is widely reported, it can be notable and thus deserving of coverage in Wikipedia – the yeti is an obvious example. (Obviously, I'm not claiming that the alleged McLaren–Honda deal has anything like as much coverage as the yeti, just that there is a scale of notability of rumours.) Dricherby ( talk) 09:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Lotus Racing has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
There's a discussion in progress at WP:MOTOR about the inclusion of "Major Race Results" tables in racing circuit articles. The emerging consensus there is in favour of such tables. I note that this disagrees with an earlier consensus of this project that F1 winners lists should not be included in circuit articles. Anyone with views on the matter is welcome to contribute to the discussion at WP:MOTOR. DH85868993 ( talk) 02:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I think a separate article needs to be made on the 2013 Pirelli tire test controversy involving Mercedes, Red Bull and Ferrari. Daniels Renault Sport ( talk) 14:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
What's the score with regard to who is included in these categories? Right now we have DNQers and DNSers but not all Friday testers. Some categories include drivers who raced for, and others say drove for. Was there a consensus or is it just the typical jumble? Bretonbanquet ( talk) 23:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
There are discussions that I have recently contributed to in regard to the 107% rule which, although it is not highly important, I do believe it is something that needs to be considered. If anybody would like to give their opinion on the Table of violations part, and the What to do when qualifying times are disallowed part then please do so! SAS1998― Talk 21:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This editor is altering references to the F1 team to link to the more general Mercedes in motorsport page. Is this right? Britmax ( talk) 11:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering about this article, not least the apparent spelling error in the title. But also whether or not it should be merged into the race article, or somewhere else. I'm really not sure this chap is notable in his own right, per WP:1E. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 23:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the Lotus Renault GP team of the 2011 season was and should be treated as being the same team as the Lotus F1 team of 2012 onwards, not the same team as Renault until 2010 and earlier. It does take some work to do this editing, but that transformal year from Renault to Lotus I think from the team's side was more intended to be linked to Lotus than to Renault, with the livery and the national registration and so on, and Renault the French car company acctually having sold its part in the team. Do you have any thoughts on this? Outer Image ( talk) 11:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe that Lotus Renault GP's 2011 season should remain covered by Renault in Formula One and Renault Grand Prix results rather than Lotus F1 - as a general rule, we transition to a new article when the constructor name changes, and in 2011 LRGP's cars were still known as "Renaults". As Bretonbanquet has identified, FORIX/Autosport include LRGP's 2011 results under "Renault" (as, incidentally, does ChicaneF1). Here is the discussion we had about Lotus and Renault at the end of 2011. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Thought I might post this here, because there are a few issues at Port Imperial Street Circuit that need attention. As there are only two editors with opposing opinions, we need some new voices in the discussion.
The current issue relates to details of promotional runs that were performed at the circuit. The user who supports the inclusion of these edits believes that they are important because they constitute "media coverage about an officially un-named, proposed street circuit", and their inclusion is therefore justified.
On the oher hand, I am opposing their inclusion for two reasons: adding them is inconsistent with other circuit pages; the closest thing i can find is a 'Reception' section added to the articles for the newest circuits on the calendars, but these only offer the opinions of drivers after they have actually driven the circuit in racing cars. Secondly, and more importantly, the proposed edits are essentially free of any actual content. This is how they read:
To me, this is essentially saying "these drivers visited the site on these dates for public relations" and nothing more, which I don't think is an appropriate inclusion.
Since we're at logger-heads over this one, I'm inviting everyone to come over and weigh in on the debate. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 12:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Should the results of BMW Sauber be combined with the Sauber results? Daniels Renault Sport ( talk) 14:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I propose to merge this page with Team Lotus (2010-11), because they refer to the same team. Tony Fernandes acquired all rights of Team Lotus (historical rights, naming rights and image). Team Lotus will come back in 2011 (in spanish).
"A little over 1 year later, on September 24, 2010, it was announced that Tony Fernandes (Lotus Racing) had acquired the name rights of Team Lotus from David Hunt, marking the official re-birth of Team Lotus in Formula One".
I know this has been discussed, but in my opinion Team Lotus (1958-1994) and Team Lotus (2010-11) refer to the same team. -- Laln93 ( talk) 20:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Noting the recent creation of Dallara F191 and Dallara F192, I see that we have currently have some inconsistency regarding the naming of these cars - some articles refer to them as "191/192", some as "F191/F192" and some as "BMS-191/BMS-192". External sources are similarly divided - StatsF1 calls them 191 and 192, FORIX and ChicaneF1 call them "BMS-191" and "BMS-192" whereas grandprix.com refers to the 1992 car as a "F192". I'm happy to make all the articles consistent once we reach a consensus on the correct names. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
StatsF1 | FORIX | ChicaneF1 | grandprix.com | Higham | Autocourse | Hodges |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3087 | 3087 | 3087 | ||||
188 | BMS-188 | BMS-188 | F188 | F188 | F188 | BMS 188 |
189 | BMS-189 | BMS-189 | F189 | F189 | F189 | BMS 189 |
190 | BMS-190 | BMS-190 | F190 | 190 | BMS 190 | |
191 | BMS-191 | BMS-191 | F190 | F191 | 191 | 191 |
192 | BMS-192 | BMS-192 | F192 | F192 | 192 | 192 |
I don't understand why Fernando Alonso's 2009 Formula One season results are split up? Shouldn't their just be one? Daniels Renault Sport ( talk) 17:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Currently there are two articles about the 1961-62 F1 BRM:s. 1) BRM P48/57 about the 1961 Climax powered car and 2) BRM P57 about the later BRM V8 powered car. According to the BRM Saga Vol 2 by Doug Nye the correct BRM designations for the cars were "P57" and "P578". These were variants of the same chassis with different motors, and both have later been called "P57" causing some confusion. "P48/57" is just an unofficial name sometimes used for the "real" P57. I have edited both articles and info boxes to reflect this, calling the earlier type "P57-Climax" and "Climax powered P57", and the 1962 type "P57-V8" and "V8 powered P57", following the example of Doug Nye. IMHO the title of the "BRM P48/57" article should be changed to "BRM P57-Climax". The title for the "BRM P57" article should be "BRM P57-V8". Kurt kuurna ( talk) 05:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor has started adding dates, number of laps and race distances to the winners lists in the Grand Prix articles. Statistics creep? Do we really need it when that data is covered in individual race articles? -- Falcadore ( talk) 02:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Trexhunter (aka Mr Unexplained Random Changes to race articles) is back, having edited 2013 Monaco Grand Prix. Please be aware. Britmax ( talk) 08:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I have to go to work soon but have just noticed the changes made on this list. Do we really need "La Condamine" (it's the area around the harbour, in case you were wondering) next to Monaco? I would go through them but as I say work beckons. Britmax ( talk) 07:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone! In approximately 15 minutes from now, the 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix article will be today's featured article, displayed on the front page. The article has been semi-protected, but can I ask the members of this WikiProject to keep an eye out for vandalism and/or unwarranted changes over the next 24 hours? I will do my best to keep track of what is happening, but I will be out of the house with no internet connection for most of tomorrow. Thanks,— Midgrid (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
An editor seems to be changing the location of this circuit from Barcelona to Montmelo. is this right? Britmax ( talk) 20:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
An editor is adding this to driver articles. I feel that this is an unnecessary duplication of information already in the career summaries. For some drivers with long successful careers this would make already long articles even longer and harder to load. I have left a note on their talk page asking them to stop until the opinion of this project is known either way. Britmax ( talk) 09:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
This user has renamed themselves User:Speedy Question Mark. No idea why, just thought you should know. Britmax ( talk) 18:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Is their really a need to include TD to their Weekends as Test driver in their Formula One results as their not results as they never entered the actual race. Just a thought because some drivers articles have them and others don't even thought that I know that the driver was part of Friday practice. Daniels Renault Sport ( talk) 17:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated Template:Female Formula One drivers for deletion. Please share your thoughts at the discussion. Spyder_Monkey ( Talk) 23:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
FYI, it has been proposed that Danny Sullivan be moved to Danny Sullivan (racing driver). You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Danny Sullivan#Proposed move. DH85868993 ( talk) 08:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
An editor is changing references to the Circuit de Catalunya in season articles to the above. Anyone know of a good reason why this would be done? Britmax ( talk) 21:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Found the reason now. I wish people would leave edit summaries and not just change things. Britmax ( talk) 21:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
FYI, Port Imperial Street Circuit and Grand Prix of America have been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 04:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
An IP is making unexplained random changes to motor racing articles again, and while sometimes I would revert them systematically this week I have other things to attend to and cannot spare the time. Britmax ( talk) 15:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Mr pointless changes is back today.
Britmax (
talk) 15:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Now we have 2.30.199.128 ( talk · contribs) recording little changes on pages in recent seasons. Just to keep an eye out. Craig (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
This is an important matter that needs to be resolved. A consensus has supposedly been achieved but a lot of season overview pages and a lot of individual Grands Prix pages don't act whithin these supposed consensus. I think a grand prix should carry the flag of the continent/country/region/city it is named for. After all there is a reason why it is named after that particular location. There are indeed a few exceptions where there is nog flag for that location like the Pacific GP, Pescara GP, the upcoming GP of the Americas, or even the Ceasar's Palace GP. In those examples the only option is to show the flag of the country in which the Grand Prix took place. But when the locations named in the Grands Prix's names have their own flag like San Marino, Europe(and the Flag of Europe IS used to represent the whole of Europe; it was adopted before the founding of the EU) and Luxembourg(and even Abu Dhabi too), those flags should be shown.
Yes Coca-Cola 600 is a different sport than Formula One, but it very strongly illustrates the point being made. The point was getting you to understand that wikipedia does not apply flags on the basis of a race's name. There are much more important considerations. Formula One races have NOT always been named after locations, you just think they are. And sometimes they are named "for fun". When a nation hosts more than one grand prix they look up a bunch of options. In Germany they've used European Grand Prix for race #2, but not exclusively. Sometimes they used Luxembourg. Similarly in France they've named their second race Swiss Grand Prix, and the Italians named their second race the San Marino Grand Prix. They do this because it's a better option than say French Summer Grand Prix or French Winter Grand Prix, although they HAVE picked seasons like Summer/Winter for when there was more than one Swedish Grand Prix. The United States when naming their second races have gone all over the shop. They've used city names, they've used compass directions like West and East. They've used variations on how you say the countries name, like Grand Prix of the Americas, and at least once, they've used the name of a Hotel! Additionally you mention the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix needs to be changed, but the flag they have always used for the event is that of the country the United Arab Emirates, so you can see by your own standards you are shouting so loudly they are not co-operating with what you believe.
So really the only race that co-operates with your belief is Europe, so essentially you are asking for an exemption to this one race? But, and this is important for you to understand, really really important, they are just names. You are giving importance to subject that just doesn't exist, so please stop clinging to false assumptions. 121.222.226.116 ( talk) 16:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
AUS![]() |
AUS![]() |
I've spotted my name being used here. I did say that flag usage should be consistent, but consistency is not mandatory. We are not obliged to be consistent across a set of articles, although it's usually helpful. That's the first thing. The second thing is that some people keep losing track of what consensus was achieved: we agreed to switch the flag from the race name to the circuit in the calendar. Nothing to do with the results tables. I suspect that was because there was too little chance of getting an agreement on it.
We will not be "reinstating flags everywhere". The flag deletionists will be all over us. Plus it makes pages look awful. Plus any number of other reasons. I think we can reduce our new proposal to two points:
1. Remove flags in driver and constructor results tables in season articles.
2. Remove the flag above the infoboxes in a) generic race articles, e.g. British Grand Prix, and b) specific race articles, e.g. 2012 British Grand Prix.
If there's a consensus for this, we can do it. If there isn't a consensus for it, we should probably shut up about it. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 20:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It's been a while, and I see a weak consensus for the first proposal and no consensus for the second. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 19:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I have to go to bed soon but a watch should be kept on this contributor. The only edit of theirs I have found to have a source quotes Autosport on the return of the Mexican GP next season, and even this is footnoted as awaiting contract and confirmation. I'm afraid we have another extra work magnet here. Britmax ( talk) 21:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Someone has added that Kimi is going to be a Ferrari driver. They have done this, understandably, because the BBC have said so. If you look at the BBC article it says "the team have not announced this but an an announcement is expected imminently". This is obviously the BBC flapping to beat Facetwitter to the punch. What's the point? Britmax ( talk) 09:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I have successfully created File:Singapore street circuit v3.svg, the new Singapore GP map, without the turn 10 chicane. I have added it to / updated Marina Bay Street Circuit, 2013 Singapore Grand Prix, List of Formula One circuits, and Singapore Grand Prix. Where else does it need to go? SAS1998― Talk 21:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Following discussion exists on the 2014 Formula One season's talk page:
So they have just released the calendar and honestly I reckon there could be some changes in it Matt294069 ( talk) 08:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
That does indeed seem likely given how much to-ing and fro-ing we've seen with races being agreed and dropped just in the last couple of months. To that end I think it would have been quite prudent to keep the reference to the New Jersey situation on there in the 'Changes' section until we have a final, confirmed calendar at the end of the year saying it will not happen. Stranger things have happened than races finding funding to get them back on track and even if that doesn't eventually occur, it's still noteworthy to state that a major project to get an F1 race to happen there is in place and had been approved, with those having invested in it thus far presumably still attempting to resurrect it. Recall that until yesterday we had no realistic intonation that there would be a Mexican GP next year but that is now on the article, although the actual likelihood of that occurring has been widely questioned. Until the calendar is finalised, I think it's worth including a reference to every race which has at some point been announced by Bernie as having a firm contract for 2014 on the changes section. BroSwerve ( talk) 00:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing how this draft calendar is speculation. The references given make it clear that this calendar was shown to team principals for feedback. If it was some kind of hoax, the principals would have spotted it immediately. They wouldn't accept a draft calendar for review from anyone who was not in a position to hand them that draft calendar.
To address Txv1's argument, we have never needed an independent statement from race organisers to verify a calendar being legitimate - only to verify the inclusion of that race before a calendar is published. You want the calendar to confirm the race and the race to confirm the calendar.
Txv1, I suggest you read the practices you cite a little more carefully. In the past, we have only sought confirmation of a race joining the calendar from the event organisers when a calendar has not been published. When the calendar is published, that is considered confirmation enough. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 20:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
A publication is either reliable as a source, or not reliable. You cannot pick and choose which articles from that source are reliable and which are not, especially when your argument is that we cannot be sure of the sources used by the publication. While it is true that we cannot demonstrate that the calendar given to Autosport was genuine, it is equally true that we cannot demonstrate that the calendar given to Autosport was not genuine. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 15:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I have now adressed the planned races section. I sincerely hope we can keep this lay-out without to much discussion until an official calendar is released in a couple of days. I think it's the most accurate representation of the current facts that are known. I have added some further explanation to the current American, Mexican and Spanish Grands Prix situations. I have left the Spanish Grand Prix venue as TBA on the list as there are currently conflicting reports concerning the host of the 2014 Spanish Grand Prix and we can't be certain which one it's going to be a the moment. Tvx1 ( talk) 01:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
As the official calendar for that season has now been released it no longer really relevant to discuss this any further on that season's page. Still I think its no time to shelf this matter yet. After all, the exact same situation will probably arise next year and every following year. So I think is in everybody's interest that we reach a consensus and forge that in to a guideline for the project on when to start posting a calendar on an upcoming season's page. More precisely is a draft for a calendar enough to do so? My opinion is it is not and we should wait until the official instances release the official (provisional) calendar. Tvx1 ( talk) 17:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
FYI, List of achievements by Ayrton Senna has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. For those who aren't aware, a full list of active F1-related AfDs (and PRODs, CfDs, TfDs, etc) exists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Article alerts (which is updated once a day). DH85868993 ( talk) 14:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI, it has been proposed that BRM 15 and British Racing Motors V16 be merged. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the merger discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:List of fatal Formula One accidents#Maria De Villota regarding the inclusion of de Villota on the list of fatal F1 accidents and the possible rewording of the list criteria. Please have your say. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 23:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI, 2016 Formula One season has been recreated. DH85868993 ( talk) 07:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI, Category:Monaco Grand Prix winners has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI, Template:2013 F1 Constructors Standings has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 07:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Template:2010 F1 Points System has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
DH85868993 (
talk) 11:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
An editor has moved List of Formula One records to List of Formula One constructor records. I have lodged a request for the move to be reverted, on the basis that the new name is unsuitable (as the article contains more than just constructor records). DH85868993 ( talk) 23:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Further input has been requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of achievements by Ayrton Senna. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI, the following articles have recently been created: 2014 Formula One season cars, Renault Energy F1-2014 and Red Bull RB10. Red Bull RB10 has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 06:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick heads-up, ladies and gentlemen - please be on the lookout for vandalism, particularly on the Daniil Kvyat article. It's currently got an orange lock, so changes need to be reviewed before appearing in the text, but something might slip through. Lots of people are unhappy that Toro Rosso took Kvyat over da Costa, and they're expressing it by trying to make out that Kvyat stole a seat that was rightfully da Costa's. It's been an issue on the 2014 season page, which has been semi-protected accordingly. It might also come up on the AFdC article, but I haven't seen anything (yet), and it currently remains unprotected. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 03:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI, 2014 Indian Grand Prix (a redirect to 2014 Formula One season) has been nominated for deletion (on the basis that it has been confirmed that there will be no Indian Grand Prix in 2014). You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 03:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The PURE article has been nominated for deletion after the argument at Talk:2014 Formula One season. Please have your say at the AfD page. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 23:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed a lot, But the flags on the Grand Prix articles should represent the Grand Prix itself not the country it is in, The Swiss Grand Prix was held in France a few times but was still represented under the Swiss flag as well as the Luxemburg Grand Prix being held in Germany but with the Luxemburg flag etc. The articles should represent the Grand Prix's like F1 itself does because using the Spanish flag on the European Grand Prix article would confuse the reader as it wasn't always held in Spain and even though the San Marino GP was held in Italy it was always represented under the San Marino flag and that's how readers would relate to knowing what grand prix that is. Just trying to make the articles better to understand for the readers because one of my friends who was getting into Formula One's history got confused over the Grand Prix flags and he's not stupid. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 18:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, the flag icon MOS is a guideline created by a consensus at the MOS page; editors can't just decide whether they're going to adhere to it or not, even at WikiProject level. WikiProject consensus does not overrule a MOS because the MOS is Wikipedia's consensus regarding flag usage. WikiProjects don't have any "rights" over articles. We are on the very borderline of violating the MOS with regard to using a flag icon in driver infoboxes, even though it's our consensus to use them. You don't want to know how many acres of cyberspace I used up trying to keep those flags. Secondly, you talked about using the flag the organisers used – how do you propose to determine which flag they used in the 1957 Pescara Grand Prix, for example, or any of the others The359 mentioned? Thirdly, a flag cannot directly represent an event, it's a non sequitur. It can only ever have a decorative function if the event takes place in a different country from that whose flag they're waving. With regard to your last point, I don't think the "flag of the event" has any relevance whatsoever to an encyclopedia. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 22:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Are we back here AGAIN? Flags have always been associated with geographic location because a name is just a name. You don't seem to have a problem with the Korean Grand Prix using the South Korean flag instead of an invented pretend Korea flag do you? You don't think using South Korea instead of Korea and using the European Union flag for Spain is a double standard?
Answer me this, why is using a consistent standard for ALL races instead of a made-up one based on an editors personal preferences a bad idea? --
Falcadore (
talk) 05:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Additionally a question for
Speedy Question Mark - you make this arguement as though the flags are used exclusively by the Formula One World Championship, where is the flags and infoboxes are used in a very wide variety of races - such as well... the contents of this
Category:Formula One non-Championship races. Plus Formula 2, Formula 3, Formula 3000 etc. So do you have a flag for the
Evening News Trophy ? --
Falcadore (
talk) 05:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
TLDR but in quick response: Point 1 I find puzzling – I don't refuse to admit that it's my personal preference not to have certain flags. Nowhere have I said otherwise. Regarding the MOS, no, some people have given their interpretation of the MOS, and I have given mine. I've quoted a chunk of it below (under Point 5) which directly relates to the subnational flag issue, I don't see any wriggle room in that. Nothing has been "confirmed as justified". I'm sure you don't want to leave a message at the MOS page for the MOS creators to come here and have their say? Or do you?
Point 3 - Still a mess. Where do you want to use these flags? Generic race articles? Individual race reports? Season articles (calendar / driver/constructor results tables?)? "Use the flags used by the Grands Prix themselves" – do you mean the organisers? Grands Prix can't use anything. What's so bad with having two ways to deal with flag use? They contradict each other. How exactly do you plan to prove what flags were used by race organisers in the 1950s and 1960s etc, if any? Start with the Pescara race and find me something that proves what flag was used to represent it at that time.
Point 4 – I'm quite happy to remove all the flags from above race article infoboxes, yes, that's right. I don't see the point in them and they have no purpose other than decoration. They also obviously cause confusion. You completely misunderstand my point though, as I was referring to the use of sub/supranational flags representing an event not open solely to parties from those specific areas. Last time I looked, the UK, Belgium and Australia were nations, not supranational entities. The guidelines regarding use of sub/supranational flags are different from those regarding use of national flags. I don't believe the use of the European flag constitutes "direct relevance" to an article about the European Grand Prix because it isn't a European event. It's an FIA/worldwide event that uses the name and flag of Europe as a badge of convenience, therefore carries no real relevance to anything.
Point 5 – subnational flags are used in articles about cities because that's allowed under the MOS but "Subnational flags (regions, cities, etc.) should generally be used only when directly relevant to the article. Such flags are rarely recognizable by the general public, detracting from any shorthand utility they might have, and are rarely closely related to the subject of the article. For instance, the flag of Tampa, Florida, is appropriately used on the Tampa article. However, the Tampa flag should generally not be used on articles about residents of Tampa: it would not be informative..." blah blah. How does a subnational flag's use in a race report not contravene that?
It would be worth noting that further badinage here is fairly pointless. Nothing will come of it without input from others. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 21:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
If I can just address two small points of your dead-horse-flogging exercise above: a) I have never said my only objection to your proposal is based on my personal preference, and I'd like you to strike that, along with the implication that I'm only here to bugger up your crappy proposal. If you've read any of my posts, you'd know that I have a number of objections, and they happen to coincide with my personal preference. I hope that's clear enough to you now. Furthermore, even if my opinions were solely based on personal preference, they still count every bit as much as yours do. B) Regarding your second point, you've contrived not only to misunderstand the acceptable usage of supranational flags, but you've also misunderstood what I said regarding them. I'm not quite sure how you've managed that, but I'm definitely not explaining it again. If you don't understand the objections to your wishes, well, it doesn't matter. You're just repeating yourself and you currently don't have enough support for what you want to do. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 23:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity I feel the need to ask. Your most recent objections have been based on objections that relate specifically for races like Swiss/San Marino/Luxembourg, objections based specifically on nationality. By that might I interpret you no longer have objections in regards to Europe/Detroit/Pescara et al? Or are you debating races individually, if so the argument should perhaps be subdivided to match? You see, arguing over the 1982 Swiss GP so specifically ignores completely the reasons why it was done this way in the begininning. For consistency across all races regardless of being a Formula One World Championship event or not, and to reflect the location of the event because a great many races do not have a geographic or national component to their name. You want to dismiss all of that just so you can have a San Marinese flag sit decoratively next to the words San Marino, possibly suggesting to the point the Grands Prix des Nations might be represented by a what... the UN flag and forgeting/ignoring that the European Grand Prix itself pre-dates the existance of the European Union flag. To back up what Bretonbanquet has just posted, if you have a hard time understanding the objections presented to you, it is because you misunderstand what the flags are being used for in the first instance. -- Falcadore ( talk) 18:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
That's exactly how they are represented on season articles. And have been for some time. Prisonermonkeys ( talk)\
Well Tvx1, you've gone to MOSICONS and had it stated categorically that sub and spranational flags should definately not be used, and when told about F1's overuse you get offended. Well I can only hope this brings an end to the matter. -- Falcadore ( talk) 07:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
An editor has questioned whether Template:Formula One should be converted to a navbox. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Template talk:Formula One#Convert this to a Navbox. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
There's a discussion in progress at Talk:List_of_Formula_One_driver_records#Alberto_Ascari_consecutive_wins_dilemma regarding whether or not races in which a driver/team was not entered should be counted when listing consecutive streaks, e.g. whether Alberto Ascari should be credited with 7 or 9 wins in a row in 1952-53. Please express any views you may have on the matter at the discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 22:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I've looked over the "Former" constructor navbox and Frank Williams Racing Cars are mentioned but they never was a constructor as they always used consumer chassis through the teams whole existence, In the teams later years they renamed the consumer chassis under the FW name but it was still considered consumer so why are they mentioned as a constructor. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 13:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted the addition of "McMonkey" and variations to several articles today. Please keep an eye on this as I have to go to work soon. Britmax ( talk) 12:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The Red Bull RB10 article recently went through the AfD process, and the result was that it has been kept. I have since made some extensive changes to the content, as I felt it was entirely inappropriate for the article - most of the content was given over to descriptions of the Renault engine, the one part of the car Red Bull won't actually design, and dramatic quotes from the staff about how extensive the rule changes are without any explanation of how Red Bull are addressing these changes in their design.
However, the changes in content have not gone over well with Fremintug, the user who created the article, and he keeps reverting the changes and demanding a consensus for them. He us currently suspected of being a sock of DeFacto, and his behaviour is very consistent with DeFacto's. If he is DeFacto, though, that means the process is going to be long and gruelling, so I'm hoping people can contribute to the discussion on the article talk page, quickly form a consensus, and end the nonsense before it begins (or at least gfs worse). Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 21:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
File:A1-Mobile-Network.gif I've found this logo, Was this the one used by the track. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 14:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Having some issues with an IP who insists on adding "the greatest driver ever" to Senna's article. He's modified his wording but refuses to discuss and what he's putting doesn't match the source. Would appreciate anyone who wants to help out. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 14:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Overnight, there has been an internet posting that examines the Lotus-Quantum deal and suggests that some of the people involved might not be all they seem, with allegations of fraud and other unseemly activities being thrown in. As far as I can tell, it hasn't made its way into any articles just yet, but it's taken hold on Reddit and F1 Fanatic, and it's the kind of thing that editors might rush to include in an article. After all, I once saw someone had edited the 2014 season article to say that Hyundai would enter the sport, and when I checked out the reference given, it was actually a forum post I had written suggesting it was a possibility based on certain observations.
Anyway, I am not expecting this Quantum thing to be a big deal, but I thought I should just put it out there. I remember we had some trouble back in 2009 when Sauber were to be bought out by the QADBAK investment group, but the deal fell apart after a connection was found between QADBAK and a British con artist, and the 2010 season article said as much without any proof. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 02:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
2016 Formula One season has been revived, on the basis that it shouldn't have been speedily deleted on the 4th of November because it wasn't sufficiently identical to the version which was previously deleted. I have nominated it for deletion again per WP:TOOSOON. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 00:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
FYI, an IP editor identifying himself as da Silva Ramos' grandson has provided further input regarding the driver's first name at Talk:Hernando da Silva Ramos#Name. (I thought I'd mention it here because I wasn't sure how many people would be watching the article). Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 09:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
When should the Formula One teams articles have their constructor titles changed like Marussia-Cosworth to Marussia-Ferrari for example. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 17:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion this is turning into an obsessive stats site. Anyone else want to try to stem this tide? Britmax ( talk) 12:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
There's a discussion in progress at Talk:List_of_Formula_One_driver_records#Drivers.27_Championships_without_Constructors.27_Championship regarding whether or not Kimi Räikkönen technically achieved this feat during the 2007 Formula One season. Please express any views you may have on the matter at the discussion. Thanks. Tvx1 ( talk) 15:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
While doing some unrelated research i've noticed that on the articles dealing with the 2007 Australian, Malaysia, Bahrain, Spanish, Monaco, Canadian, United States, French, British, European, Hungarian, Turkish and Italian Grands Prix McLaren isn't included in the table showing the constructors' standings after those races. This is probably due to McLaren later being disqualified from that season's Constructors' Championship later (in-between the Italian and Belgian Grands Prix to be precise). However, this articles deal with a specific day in history and should present the actual facts (e.g. official flags at that time, official circuit names on that day,... ) on that date in time. So shouldn't McLaren be included in those table labelled "Standings After the Race" as they were not yet disqualified at that point? Tvx1 ( talk) 20:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
FYI, WP:F1 no longer leads to our project page - it now leads to a disambiguation page. Likewise WT:F1 no longer leads to this page. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Should the brand new racing series FIA Formula E Championship get its own WikiProject because I've already created a few Formula E articles. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 15:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I've just become aware of List of current Formula One Grands Prix. I'm wondering whether this article is really necessary - it seems to be an amalgam of parts of List of Formula One circuits and parts of 2013 Formula One season. Thoughts? DH85868993 ( talk) 03:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree. We just need to make sure that the information on `most recent winning driver' remains easily accessible. I also think that a redirect should be put in from this (and related search terms) to List of Formula One circuits. EdwardRussell ( talk) 10:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion on the 2014 season talk page about how to organise team and driver tables in season articles now that the numbering system has changed. A preliminary consensus has been established, but honestly, the whole thing has been drowned out by the Sergey Sirotkin situation, so I think a lot of people may have missed it the first time around.
The short version is this - there are two proposals up for discussion:
You're invited to contribute at the above-listed discussion. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 06:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I notice that a "car number" column has been added to {{ F1 Drivers Standings}} (which currently contains the 2013 Drivers' Championship table, and is transcluded into 2013 Formula One season). Do we like this? (I thought I would ask here because I wasn't sure how many people would have that template on their watchlist). DH85868993 ( talk) 02:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
There has been a very long and tedious debate at Talk:2014 Formula One season with regard to the inclusion of Sergey Sirotkin on the list of 2014 F1 drivers. We would appreciate further input so that we might come to a speedy conclusion. There is a precis of the argument here. Thanks, Bretonbanquet ( talk) 16:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Entry lists have recently been added to several 1950s F1 race reports (e.g. 1952 French Grand Prix#Entries). I notice that for cars which were shared in the race, both drivers are listed in the entry list (e.g. cars 16 and 34 in the listed example). Is this correct? Or should the entry list only list the driver who started the race in that car (i.e. the car's "nominated" driver)? DH85868993 ( talk) 01:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)