![]() | 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 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
Hi. I notice that in drivers profiles are numbers will be listed again as "2014 number" and i think that need to be change with "Car number" as from this season every driver will have own number and i think that will be more proper if drivers team and car number are listed as in MotoGP driver profiles as "2014 team" to become "Current team" and "2014 car number" to become "Car number". I'm sorry if i listed this on wrong place i'm new in this :) K.belev ( talk) 12:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I've updated the list of circuits to show this season's tracks, although I did not move Russia in from the proposed tracks section. Strangely, I found that the map of Spa was old. SAS1998― Talk 23:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I thought maybe it's time we update the logo of our Project. After all, it's already eight years old now. Tvx1 ( talk) 21:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
1958 Portuguese Grand Prix lists Casimiro de Oliveira as a non-starter, which is supported by StatsF1 and Grand Prix Guide. But there's no mention of him at formula1.com, ChicaneF1, FORIX or oldracingcars.com. Does anyone have definitive evidence regarding whether or not he was actually entered for the race? Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 02:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that in this article Clay Regazzoni and Jacques Laffite are listed as retired. Instead the got Disqualified after they started in the spare car. I noticed this sentence in particular: Laffite retired on lap 32 and Regazzoni on lap 37 due to suspension problems and low oil pressure respectively, relieving the stewards from having to rule on whether the two were to be disqualified for use of the replacement cars. Even if drivers retire from the race, they will still get Disqualified if they or their team do something illegal. Prize money is also an issue. If you get disqualified you will receive no prize money.
A very reliable source in this matter is Duke’s GRAND PRIX DATA BOOK 1997: This book gives a complete record of all Formula one world Championship races. They also listed Regazzoni and Laffite as Disqualified: C Regazzoni and J Laffite disqualified (after their retirement) for restarting in spare cars. -- Jahn1234567890 ( talk) 22:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Remember Juan Pablo Montoya? Eje Elgh - Raceography? Gary Brabham? It's back again, this time on Denny Hulme. And the editor concerned just want to revert any changes. -- Falcadore ( talk) 00:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It says in many articles that Mercedes-Benz returned to Formula One in 1993 but the engines were only called Mercedes in 1994 meaning that they returned in that year and not 1993, I'm pretty confused did they return in 1993 or 1994? They backed Sauber but had no part in it at all apart from a sticker on the engine cover, And if it was 1994 then a lot of articles need to be corrected to stop confusion because it confused me. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 14:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned that 1932 Tunis Grand Prix and 1933 Tunis Grand Prix are violations of copyright. The entire material appears to be changed little from the source material, even down to the formatting. Any thoughts? -- Falcadore ( talk) 10:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 17:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC).
Is it just me, but is the List of Formula One race edits songs the most trivial F1 article ever attempted? Anyone disagree this should go straight to AFD? -- Falcadore ( talk) 01:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Someone started using Adam Cooper's F1 blog as a source for the article 2015 Formula One season. Do we really want this? Is this considered a reliable source? I would think it fails WP:SPS. Tvx1 ( talk) 14:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Azerbaijan Grand Prix has been nominated for deletion. You may wish to comment in the deletion discussion. -- Falcadore ( talk) 16:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
What File:2001_BMW-Williams_FW23.JPG actually is? Regardless of what the placard says, it's clearly not a FW23; the FW23 did not have those panels over the suspension, the front track is far too wide for a 2001 car, and the rear end isn't even close. The side pods are wrong as well. The paint scheme is correct, albeit possibly a shade or two too light, but that's the only thing that's close. The panels over the suspension appear to come from a FW22, but the front suspension leaves me confused; none of the 1990s Williams used Michelin, and their suspension all appears to be a different shape, whilst the theory of a stretched FW21-style suspension doesn't seem that plausible either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Should the Williams F1 article be moved to Williams Racing to coincide with the Williams Martini Racing partnership excluding Martini due to it being a sponsor, because the Williams team look to have dropped the simple Williams F1 banner on most of their property and are now going with Williams Racing, just a thought share your opinion on this if you think this is a good move. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 16:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
“ | McLaren Racing Limited, trading as Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, is a British Formula One team based in Woking, Surrey, England, United Kingdom. | ” |
I would support a move to Williams Grand Prix Engineering. I am not in favour of a move to Williams Racing since, as others have already mentioned, it is neither the full name of the team or the company, and I think it's too soon to claim is as the common name. DH85868993 ( talk) 06:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I've put on official request for moving the page on Talk:Williams F1. Please feel free to post your opinions there. Tvx1 ( talk) 15:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thai Grand Prix has been nominated for deletion; is there a non-F1 Thai GP? -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 04:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
FYI, List of Formula One Grand Prix Podiums has recently been created. DH85868993 ( talk) 01:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Since when do we use F1.com as a source? It's common knowledge here that it's a basket case of errors. I don't recall any discussion that decided we were going to rely on it. The Australian GP retirements are a case in point, Vettel himself confirming engine failure rather than a more general power unit failure. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 22:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought I had fixed that. It looks like someone changed it back, because of the stupid fixation with perfectly mirroring the sources, even when an exaplanation is needed, as is the case here. "ERS" on its own means nothing - it is an abbreviation of "Energy Recovery System". But, noooo, the source says "ERS", so that is what the article must say. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 05:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that the 2007 Formula One season article carries the following notice:
![]() | This article contains statements that are
anachronistic. |
I would improve the article myself, but I'm not sure which statements the notice is referring to. Tvx1 ( talk) 20:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
In the past few days, a small group of editors have been adding details of Flight MH370 to the 2014 Malaysian Grand Prix. Try as I might, I can find no connection between the race and the missing plane, despite their assertation that the race is controversial. So if you see something, please remove it. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 20:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads up that Template:Infobox former F1 team and Template:Infobox F1 team have been considered for merging here. Craig (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor has suggested that a separate article be created for the Ferrari F310B (i.e. rather than the F310B being covered in the Ferrari F310 article). You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Ferrari F310#Seperate article for F310B. DH85868993 ( talk) 08:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It's been brought to my attention, that the scope of WP:F1 is not well clarified. It says upfront that the scope is all articles to do with Formula One, but I've found an editor removing WP:F1 tags from article talk pages on the understanding that WP:F1 is for the World Championship from 1950 onwards exclusively. Would it be possible to clarify this? -- Falcadore ( talk) 07:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we should provide a "classification" also for remaining licence points for each driver. Since April 2nd, 2014 Bottas, Magnussen and Bianchi were given 2 points out of 12 of penalty during Malaysian GP. When the licence is down to 0 pts, a driver will be disqualified for the next GP, and will return racing with just 7 points. 12 points threshold will be restored after 12 months without further penalties, so the licence could influence also the 2015 season, and so on. What do you think about it? RickyPV89 ( talk) 09:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason why the colors in standings look so awkward? Gold: , Silver: , Bronze: . Those colors look very different from those used in other sports pages (e.g. Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics, 2014 World Figure Skating Championships): Gold: , Silver: , Bronze: . Is there a particular reason for this? -- bender235 ( talk) 11:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I note that Formula One circit articles are acquireing tables of Grand Prix winners, duplicating the list of winners at the Grand Prix articles. Is this something we want to see? -- Falcadore ( talk) 22:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
There has been a long debate at Talk:2014 Formula One season on wether or not remove the official race titles from the season calendar on the Formula one season articles. We would appreciate further input so that we might come to a speedy conclusion. Thanks, Tvx1 ( talk) 13:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Template:Stefan Grand Prix has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 00:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
An editor has proposed that Haas Racing Developments (currently a redirect to Stewart-Haas Racing) become a separate article. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 11#Haas Racing Developments. DH85868993 ( talk) 04:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The use of flags in sport articles is being discussed again at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Proposed_change_to_MOSFLAG_for_sport_articles, in case anyone is interested. DH85868993 ( talk) 09:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Most of the F1 season articles from the 50s, 60s, and 70 contain tables with a list of non-championship. However not all of these races were held to Formula One rules (some of the articles even contain world championship races which weren't held to Formula One rules). There's nothing in these tables though making it clear which races were held to which rules. So, I was wondering wether it would be worth considering to add a "class" column of some sorts to be able to convey this information to the readers. Tvx1 ( talk) 16:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Sources disagree regarding Robert La Caze's nationality. I have started a discussion at Talk:Robert La Caze#Nationality. DH85868993 ( talk) 10:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I've had a look over the different race track articles and the one that stands out is the Red Bull Ring as most of the information on that article is outdated and quite messy, the images on that article are all over the place making the sections look quite awkward, so I'm planning a article revamp so if any user here wants to help out or voice their opinion on this matter please respond their comment here. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 16:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Project members may be interested in/able to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:MOTOR#Historic_F1_Championships. DH85868993 ( talk) 08:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Has the return of the European Grand Prix in 2016 been officially confirmed yet? Because a couple of articles have been updated as though it has and I wanted to know whether I should revert the changes or not. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 13:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
In the past, it has taken an announcement from Bernie Ecclestone and/or FOM to be considered confirmed. After all, Ecclestone is the authority on the calendar, and the only person whom we can be absolutely certain is in a position to confirm a new race. Final confirmation comes from the FIA, but it is Ecclestone who compiles and submits the new calendar for their consideration. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 01:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 11:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to let everyone know that a page for Forza Rossa has been created. JohnMcButts ( talk) 17:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
This chap [7] is yet again adding what I consider to be excess detail regarding fatal injuries to racing drivers. At the very least the additions are largely unsourced. I would like the opinion of the project on whether I am being too sensitive here. I just think that although we are not censored this is too much detail for a general encyclopedia. Britmax ( talk) 17:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
This article was promoted to FA in 2007 when standards were considerably looser than they are now. It is due to run as TFA on 11 June. There is a need for more citations, especially in the 1974–77: Shadow section. Can any of you help? It would be good to have this looking its best before it appears on the front page. -- John ( talk) 19:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
See Template_talk:F1_race_report#Fastest_average_speed_fields. DH85868993 ( talk) 13:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Numerous of season articles, as well as the Belgian Grand Prix and the Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps articles claim the aforementioned circuit to be situated in Spa or even Francorchamps, Spa. This is incorrect however as the town of Francorchamps where the circuit is situated is a part of the municipality of Stavelot and not that of Spa. You can find a [map of the municipal territory of Stavelot http://www.stavelot.be/files/gallery/carte_stav_fran_gd1193069403.gif] via a link on that page. This should be corrected in the affected articles.
In the past two weeks or so, the mobile version of Wikipedia has gotten some updates. As a result of this, some of the old mark-up parameters no longer work in mobile browsers, specifically the background colours in results table, which now appear as white spaces. I asked about this at WP:VPT, and was advised that the mark-up code bgcolor="#XXXXXX" no longer works for mobiles (and may eventually be phased out for the full site). Instead, the new mark-up is style="background-color:#XXXXXX". I appreciate that applying this to every single article that would require it is perhaps too much to ask; however, during the endless debate over reformatting the team and driver table, one of the things that almost everyone agreed upon was that if there is a way to do things to benefit both mobile and regular readers, then we should absolutely do it. So even if we cannot retroactively apply the new mark-up, can we all please use make a conscious effort to use it from now on? I have updated the 2014 season article to use it. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 10:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Starting up a conversation here because a potential issue is brewing over at 2014 Canadian Grand Prix. Kobayashi and Gutierrez got penalties after qualifying, which is represented through the usual means of footnoting. However, there is some debate between User:Tvx1 and myself over the order that these penalties appear. The current version lists Gutierrez's penalties as #1 and #2 and Kobayashi's penalty as #3 because Gutierrez was given the penalties first. However, this has created a situation where footnote #3 appears before footnotes #1 and #2, as Kobayashi started further up the grid than Gutierrez. Tvx1's argument is that penalties should be listed according to when they were issued. However, I feel this has the potential to cause problems, particularly if we get a race with lots of penalties, like the 2009 Japanese Grand Prix. The qualifying table has always shown the final version of the grid, regardless of how many revisions are made. The final "Grid" column is there to show any changes that result from penalties. The order that penalties are applied has no impact on the table, simply because the table shows that final version of the grid. Therefore, listing penalties in the order they are applied makes no sense to me as all it does is list the footnotes out of order. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 04:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand the argument that Tvx is trying to make, that in the event of multiple penalties, a driver might be given five places, but effectively lose three because someone else got a penalty. However, Pyrope is correct in pointing out that the footnotes are supplementary information at best. When they appear in the table, all they do is direct the reader's attention to the discrepancy between qualifying position and starting position, with prose to explain it - and that prose can explain whatever we need it to explain. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 22:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
We currently have some inconsistency between articles regarding Patrick Nève and Bernard de Dryver's participation in the 1978 Belgian Grand Prix - they are listed as non-prequalifiers in Patrick Nève, Bernard de Dryver and March Grand Prix results but not listed in the race article, season summary article or Ensign Racing. Sources such as ChicaneF1, grandprix.com, StatsF1, ESPN, historicracing.com and Autosport's Nostalgia Forum variously identify them as non-prequalifiers/non-qualifiers/no-shows but other sources such as formula1.com, FORIX and Mike Lang's Grand Prix! make no mention of them at all (but do mention Rebaque and Merzario as non-prequalifiers). Are the sources which say they were entered for the race sufficient to include them in all the relevant articles (and if so, should they be shown as DNPQ, DNP or DNA)? Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Lately I have noticed that there is a glitch in the Template:Infobox Grand Prix race report. The width of the "date" field starts expanding and contracting. It is fine in the bare-bones version added to articles before the race, but once details of qualifying and the race are added, it starts expanding and contracting, and I am unsure of how to fix it. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 05:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
FYI, Category:1949 in Formula One and Category:1949 Formula One races have been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 21:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Some of you may have noticed the recent addition of "car number" columns to various F1 team results tables, e.g. EuroBrun. Today I noticed the addition of a "car number" column to a driver results table ( Martin_Brundle#Complete_Formula_One_results). I think we should consider whether we want car number columns in driver results tables and, if so, whether we care if some drivers have them and some don't. Noting that none of our standard results table formats include a "car number" column (but also noting that none of the standard tables include driver flagicons, whereas many of the individual results tables in the F1 team/car articles do). DH85868993 ( talk) 23:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed the recent addition of "timeline" tables to Formula One drivers from Austria, Formula One drivers from Australia, Formula One drivers from New Zealand, Formula One drivers from Spain, Formula One drivers from Finland and Formula One drivers from Canada. Do we think this is useful information? DH85868993 ( talk) 02:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Currently their is Endurance Sports car information mixed up with the Grand Prix/Formula One information in the Mercedes-Benz in Formula One Template and I was wondering if I should remove it but I posted this here to see your view beforehand. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 19:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Does his place of residence need revision now he works for Williams? Britmax ( talk) 20:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I am wondering if there is any previous discussion regarding the layout of circuit maps, and how simpler ones could be used. I am considering improving some of the ones such as the Spa track map, as it looks cluttered in the infoboxes. SAS1998― Talk 15:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Please answer here, if you can: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#107.25_rule_in_motorsport Outer Image ( talk) 16:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This user may have been caught early in a random changes spree. Eyes open, please. Britmax ( talk) 16:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The En.Wikipedia is the matrix for the other articles from other wikipedias, and the projects here are more active, which is why perhaps coming here directly could be better. I have no account in the wiki of my language, but I follow the articles and already contributed to many of them, and I intend to start a discussion that perhaps generates very profound changes in all of them, so I want to start it in the wiki where it all began.
Not just talking about Formula-1, but everywhere, companies can be sold at any time, but nobody says it ends, just because of the change of the owner. Companies can also change their name, and nobody says it ends just because their name has changed. In F-1, on the other hand, there is some confusion in this concept.
For example Footwork Arrows and Arrows Grand Prix International are or not the same team with different owners? And Minardi? The Minardi team was sold to Red Bull and changed its name to Scuderia Toro Rosso, or just sold the space available and the equipment instead of the institution?
This is relevant because in my opinion we should have a article for each institution, regardless of the name they had over time. On the other hand, also know that often, when we say in the jargon of F-1 that a team was "sold", it's not the staff, institution, pt:Pessoa jurídica, but only the structure of it.
But for this you need to set some objective criteria to know when the team finishes, and another comes in its place, or when it only changes its name. In Formula 1, various racing teams are sold and remain with the same name. Others are sold, and changes its name. In any case, the simple fact of being sold does not generate a new team. The change of owners does a team ceases to exist. I think that there should be an article for every company, not for each "name".
On the other hand, I doubt if all sales are actually selling the company, or merely selling the space in F-1. Look Renault F1 Team (2002–2010) redirect to Renault in Formula One. In Portuguese, pt:Renault F1 redirects for Lotus F1 Team. The two Renault are not the same scuderia, are they? Team Lotus (2010–11) is Caterham F1 with other name. In Portuguese Team Lotus redirect for Caterham F1 Team.
Lotus Renault is Renault? Lotus Renault is a team which existed for only one year? Or are current Lotus F1, that should not be confused with the old Team Lotus?
I don't know what should be the criterion, but it seems to me that independent of what it is, it should be a single criterion, which did not require a DISCUSSION everytime to made it good. I believe the best criterion would be to use Taxpayer Identification Number or other National identification number (in Brazil are the pt:CNPJ) or the equivalent register in each country of pt:junta comercial.
Depending on the progress of this discussion, I want to launch this discussion in Basqueteball Project in relation to "Franchises" that change of name and the host city, as New Orleans Pelicans, Charlotte Hornets e Charlotte Bobcats, because these articles are a mess.
Texto original em Português
A En.Wikipedia é a matriz para os outros artigos das outras wikipedias, e os projetos daqui são os mais ativos, razão pela qual talvez vir diretamente aqui seja o mais produtivo. Não tenho conta na wiki da minha língua, mas acompanho os artigos, ja contribuí com muitos deles, e a discussão que pretendo iniciar pode gerar uma modificação talvez muito profunda em todos eles, então quero iniciá-la na wiki onde tudo começou.
Não falando apenas a nível de F-1, mas a nível geral, uma empresa (qualquer uma) pode ser vendida a qualquer momento, e nem por isso se diz que ela acaba, por causa da mudança de dono. Empresas também podem mudar de nome, e nem por isso se diz que elas acabaram, porque o nome mudou. Na F-1, por outro lado, há uma certa confusão nesse conceito.
Por exemplo Footwork Arrows e a Arrows Grand Prix International são ou não a mesma equipe, com donos diferentes? E a Minardi? A Minardi foi vendida para a Red Bull e mudou de nome para Scuderia Toro Rosso, ou só venderam a vaga e os equipamentos, ao invés da instituição?
Isso tem relevância pois na minha opinião deveríamos ter um artigo para cada instituição, independentemente do nome que elas tiveram ao longo do tempo. Por outro lado, também sei que muitas vezes, quando se diz no jargão da F-1 que quando uma equipe foi "vendida", não foi a equipe, instituição, a pt:Pessoa jurídica, mas sim apenas a estrutura dela.
Mas para isso, é preciso definir algum critério objetivo para saber quando a equipe acaba, e surge outra em seu lugar, e quando ela apenas muda de nome. Na Formula 1, diversas escuderias são vendidas e permanecem com o mesmo nome. Outras, são vendidas, e mudam de nome. Em todo o caso, o simples fato de ser vendida não gera uma equipe nova. A mudança de donos não faz uma equipe deixar de existir. Penso que deve existir um artigo para cada empresa, não para cada "nome".
Por outro lado, tenho dúvidas se todas as vendas são realmente vendas da empresa, ou meras venda de vaga. Vejam Renault F1 Team (2002–2010) redireciona para Renault in Formula One. Em Português, pt:Renault F1 redireciona para Lotus F1 Team. As duas Renault não são a mesma empresa, são? Team Lotus (2010–11) nada mais é que a Caterham F1 com outro nome. Em Português Team Lotus redireciona para Caterham F1 Team.
Lotus Renault é a Renault? Lotus Renault é uma equipe que existiu por apenas um ano? Ou é a Lotus F1 atual, que não deve ser confundida com a antiga Team Lotus?
Não sei qual deve ser o critério, mas me parece que qualquer que seja, deveria ser um critério único, que não obrigasse essa mesma discusão a ser feita sempre. Acredito que o melhor critério seria usar o Taxpayer Identification Number ou outro National identification number (que no Brasil é o pt:CNPJ) ou o registro equivalente em cada país da pt:junta comercial.
Dependendo do andamento dessa discussão, eu quero lançar essa discussão no Projeto Basqueteball em relação às "franquias" que mudam de nome e cidade-sede, como New Orleans Pelicans, Charlotte Hornets e Charlotte Bobcats, pois estes artigos estão uma grande confusão. 187.74.206.156 ( talk) 21:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
We have typically named and separated articles based on the constructor name, which is the name the FIA credits all results to, regardless of the ownership or any structural changes to the team. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 10:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
And it is called the "World Constructors Championship" for a reason. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 06:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
In theory, the franchise can be sold to the formation of a new team ( Subsidiary company), or to be occupied by a scuderia which actually is not a subsidiary, but only one sector of a larger company. Or the company subsidiary can be sold to another owner, who just change the company name. See what I mean? As I said, I do not intend to modify the Articles of Wiki-en, just explain it better, at least in the Wiki-pt. Iank Peldeva 30All ( talk) 02:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
An editor has stated that the Brawn BGP 001 should be referred to as the "Brawn GP BGP 001" (and updated the article contents accordingly). You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Brawn BGP 001#Brawn GP BGP 001 title incorrect.. DH85868993 ( talk) 13:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
There has been a tedious debate at Talk:2014 Formula One season with regard to the inclusion of information in the table for the FIA Pole Trophy. We would appreciate further input so that we might come to a speedy conclusion. You can bring your input here. Thanks, Tvx1 ( talk) 12:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
All the "2014 Grand Prix of XXX" redirects have been nominated for discussion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the discussion. Note that these are the (unused) "2014 Grand Prix of XXX" redirects, not the "2014 XXX Grand Prix" redirects (which will be converted into articles in the fullness of time). DH85868993 ( talk) 01:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Lately I have noticed a few edits from IP addresses that are describing the 2014 noses as "phallic" like this one. I suppose that, on a certain level, there is a truth to it, but at the same time, there are so many other ways to describe the noses; "finger-like", "anteater" and "alien" all spring to mind. And so I think the use of "phallic" is essentially trolling; however, I can't report the editors as IP vandals, since it's always a different address, and it's entirely plausible that this is a genuine (if misguided) attempt to improve the article.
So, can we all be on the look-out for these edits and revert them? Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 06:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated {{ 2013 F1 Drivers Standings}} (which redirects to {{ F1 Drivers Standings}}) and {{ 2013 F1 Constructors Standings}} (which redirects to {{ F1 Constructors Standings}}) for deletion, on the basis that they are unused and misleading. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 10:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
2016 Formula One season has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. Tvx1 ( talk) 15:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
A user, User:Haken arizona is currently insisting that the 2014 German Grand Prix article should include details of crowd attendance figures. This is something that we have never really done before, as crowd figures aren't usually reported by event organisers. But is it something that we should consider?
Personally, I say no. Crowd attendance figures have no bearing on the outcome of the race. It doesn't matter if 10 people or 10,000 people buy tickets; the race will still be run, and competitors will still compete. Furthermore, the justification for including the figures for Hockenheim is that it was a talking point at the time, which is a clear-cut case of RECENTISM if ever I have heard one. Sure, Toto Wolff wasn't happy with the low turn-out on Friday, but it was the middle of the workday, and lots of people had already taken the Monday off work to watch the World Cup final. And yes, Flavio Briatore was recruited to investigate ways of making the sport more popular, but the idea was quickly (and quietly) abandoned. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 21:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I am member haken Arizona, Looks like you don't want any additional information posted on your formula one event pages. This is contrary to what Wikipedia stands for. You are letting your ego get in the way. Look up older GP events on Wikipedia, they are full of information. But you insist only the results of the race should be present.(UTC)
I'd hardly call this instance controversial. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 01:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I never knew the template had an attendance field before. Presumably somebody thought it was relevant at some point in time then. I'm a little cautious about the figures as they can be notoriously unreliable (particularly in America), but if they're sourced then we should probably include them. QueenCake ( talk) 19:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Prisonermonkeys member keeps erasing my attendance data. It is properly sourced trough respectable source BBC. I believe any fact about the grand prix event is worth being in encyclopedia. Attendance was a major factor of why Korean GP was canceled. Now 3 years in a row German GP is seeing very low number even with german winning car and driver. Attendance mattered so much that it prompted various F1 management people to question the future of the sport. Also german GP tickets were heavily discounted do to the soccer win. User:Haken arizona UTC — Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
That is what I am saying prisonermonkeys keeps erasing my edit just because he is on a mobile phone and can't do it, what a joke, User:Haken arizona UTC — Preceding undated comment added 03:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that our friend Todd Abedrabbo may be carrying on his fixation with excessively detailed accident descriptions as an IP. He may just be editing while logged out in error. Would someone keep an eye on this as it's late here now and I am off to bed. Britmax ( talk) 01:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a bit of an odd one - there is a subject that, for the moment, is purely hypothetical, but should it be realised, then I feel it has the potential to become an issue for some articles, and that it would be pertinent to have a plan to address it to minimise disruption.
In the coming weeks and months, there are two referendums in Europe that have the potential to affect races. Firstly, Scotland is voting on independence, and so too is Catalonia. In the event that either or both referendum is successful, then it has the potential to affect the British and Spanish Grands Prix - specifically, their names. The British Grand Prix could become the English Grand Prix; likewise, the Spanish could become the Catalonian.
Now, I understand that both referendums are yet to be held, and that a successful yes vote is no guarantee of a name change. So, for now, we should wait and see. But for the purposes of this discussion, I think we should assume that both will be successful, that both will require name changes, and come up with a plan to address it, given the potential for confusion and vandalism. After all, I can find no precedent for this - new nations don't form very often, and no race has ever been affected until now.
The Barcelona one is easy enough; it was in Spain and will be in Catalonia, and so a new page would be needed, with a high degree of interconnectivity between them. But Silverstone is a harder proposition - Scotland would be achieving independence, and so the race would effectively remain exactly the same, but running under a new name, and I have no idea how to address that.
Thoughts? Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 04:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Pyrope, as established editors, I am surprised that neither you nor Falcadore recognised the potential for instability and disruption that an event such as this should it come to pass, particularly among the more inexperienced editors. Especially since it was you two who taught me to edit with one eye on the future, and to consider what an article will look like a day from now, a year from now, and a decade from now.
I am well aware that I am forecasting a very precise set of circumstances, and that those circumstances are unlikely to pass. But well do I remember the problems we had in 2009 when foreign-language sources started reporting that Alonso was moving to Ferrari in 2010 months before it was confirmed. We probably never anticipated that being a problem in 2008, and so nothing was really done about it until the 2010 article was constantly being edited back and forth. If we had seen it coming, we probably would have done something about it.
Hell, we have that problem right now " Baku Street Circuit" can refer to any one of three circuits, and until such time as the new circuit is named, there is a conflict.
So you can keep calling it speculation if you like. But I see it as anticipating potential issues, and trying to come up with a solution in advance so that it is less of a problem if it comes to pass. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 04:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
An editor has added car number columns to 1950_Formula_One_season#Teams_and_drivers and 1951_Formula_One_season#Teams_and_drivers. Given that the car numbers changed from race to race, do we think this is useful/necessary information? (I thought I'd raise it here because the decision has the potential to affect every season summary article before 1974, when race numbers were standardised). DH85868993 ( talk) 20:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Do we really need to list every application of the rule? How long is this going to make the article by about 2020? Britmax ( talk) 11:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
107% rule after adoption by first qualifying round (from 2011) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | Event | Q1 fastest time | 107% time | Driver | Team | Time | % of fastest | Allowed to race? |
2014 | British Grand Prix | 1:40.380 | 1:47.406 |
![]() |
![]() |
1:49.421 | 109.006 | Yes |
![]() |
1:49.625 | 109.210 | Yes |
Mharris99 ( talk) 14:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
So does anyone object to me removing all the "no time set" and "excluded" entries? Tvx1 ( talk) 17:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Since it's around the time of the year that next season's calendar will start appear in the sources and FIA will publish the official provisional calendar, I think it's a good moment to try an achieve a consensus on a matter that has been well-discussed in the past but that never appears to have reached a consensus. I'll put it plain and simple: when should we change our list of contracted races on a future season's article to the familiar calendar format? Do we do this when some preliminary draft appears in the sources, our do we wait until the FIA officially publishes the (provisional) calendar? Take into account WP:NOTNEWS, I think we should wait for the FIA calendar. Please feel free to share your opinions on the matter. Tvx1 ( talk) 17:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see what the problem is, since any calendar - be it a draft or the final version - needs to be approved by the World Motorsport Council before it is published.
And I find the argument that that particular draft was invalid because there was nothing prior on certain races having a contract when you are also arguing that Wikipedia is not news. If a calendar published by FOM with the approval of the WMSC contains a race that had not previously been discussed, then surely the authority of FOM and the WMSC could be used in lieu of an announcement from organisers. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 06:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
In the past few months, the wiki markup bgcolor="#XXXXXX" has stopped working for mobile browsers, as it is no longer supported. It has been replaced by style=background-color:"#XXXXXX", which some of you may recognise as the markup being used in the results matrices on the 2014 season article. The issue has been raised at VPT, who have recognised it as a bug. Their explanation of why it has happened was a little too technical for me, but as I understand it, the problem may expand to affect non-mobile users as well.
Recent discussions with other users has revealed the extent of this problem. It affects every season, driver, team and car article in almost every motorsport discipline. I cannot begin to fathom where else it might be used across Wikipedia, much less the extent of it. As such, the problem is too extensive to be fixed by us and us alone. In concert with a few other users, it has been decided that the most efficient way forward is to put in a WP:BOTREQUEST to repair the problem. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 00:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
style=background-color:"#XXXXXX"
won't work, see my comments at
WP:BOTREQ#Request to fix "bgcolor" markup. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 12:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)While doing some reading I came across the Cosworth article. This article currently contains two tables claiming to list Cosworth entire F1 supplies. The first is in a section called "Complete Formula One World Championship results]]. But in contrary to what the section title claims in contains only the first six seasons of their F1 participation. Just beneath this table there is another one listing their customers per season. This last one seems to be the more relevant one to me since they are a mere engine supplier. However, the information in this list contradicts the information in the former table (that is, for the seasons that are present in both tables). Furthermore some information seems to be wrong. For instance, the table claims that Cosworth's 1965 customers were the Lotus and Cooper teams, while in reality they used Coventry Climax engines. DH85868993 already questioned the first table on the article's talk page, but that is three years ago now, and they never received any reaction to their concern. Needless to say, the tables need some urgent expanding/correcting to make them accurate/complete. I would have done it myself, but I thought i'd raise the issue first to make sure which table is preferred and in case of the former table, if we want to complete that one whether we should move it to a separate article. Tvx1 ( talk) 15:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
An editor has suggested adding coloured backgrounds for the "Pos" cells in the race results tables in F1 race report articles - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Tables#Race_results_on_event_page. In the interests of keeping the discussion in one place, please add any comments there. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 22:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Not wishing to jump the gun, but I guess that in the event of a yes vote for Scottish independence tomorrow (results likely confirmed early on Friday morning in the UK), we could expect to see a rash of editors 'updating' flags associated with historical results from the UK flag to the Scottish one.
My assumption is that all stays as it is for now with the UK flag used for all historic and current UK drivers. In the event of a yes vote - but possibly not for a year or two - it would become clear how the FIA will treat Scottish and 'rest of' UK drivers in the future and we can make appropriate changes.
I do note the conversation at the top of the page about race naming - the only reason for mentioning this now is to be sure we have a common line on whether to revert changes to flags to the current status quo until such time as the future position becomes clear. -- 4u1e ( talk) 11:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I will also note that Scotland will not be independent immediately upon the result of the referendum – the actual independence will take place sometime in 2016. However, whether the FIA decides to allow Scottish nationality before then is a different matter entirely, and again, we follow the sources. — Gyaro – Maguus— 12:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Tvx1, it has nothing to do with passports, it has to do with which national motorsport authority issued the driver their racing license. "For the purposes of this Code the “nationality” of a competitor or driver is that of the ASN which issued him with his FIA licence (see Article 112)." and "A parent ASN is the ASN of the country of which the licence-holder is a national. In the case of a professional competitor or driver as defined by article 18 of the present Code, a parent ASN may also be the ASN of the E.U. country of which the licence-holder is a bonafide permanent resident." ( http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/C57D2C7837004DC3C125734B0032A5A2/$FILE/CSI%2024.10.2006%20modif%20ap%20AGO%20oct%2006%20revu%2016.05.07ANG.pdf) There is no requirement that you be a full citizen of a European country in order to obtain a license from said country.
To further the point, Scotland would need to create their own ASN in order to issue Scottish racing licenses. However there is nothing stopping a Scottish citizen from maintaining a British racing license if they hold dual citizenship and choose to represent Britain. The359 ( Talk) 19:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
“ | 112. Nationality of a competitor or driver As far as the application of this Code is concerned, every competitor or driver who has obtained their licence from an ASN takes the nationality of that ASN for the period of validity of that licence. All drivers, irrespective of the nationality of their licence, participating in any FIA World Championship event, shall retain the nationality of their passport in all official documents, meetings, information bulletins and prize-giving ceremonies. |
” |
It doesn't matter - Scotland has voted to stay in the Union. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 06:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cockpit Manager '14 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockpit Manager '14 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DH85868993 ( talk) 13:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I must say I'm very surprised by the lack of car sub-categories. We have them by season, and even Category:Formula One cars that never raced, but we don't have them by capability or achievement.
I've requested a category for Category:Formula_One_championship-winning_cars, and there appear to be no takers for creating it. Seems an obvious partner to Category:Formula One World Drivers' Champions...
Another one would be "Turbo F1 cars", "Hybrid F1 cars", or "Cars running slick tyres", etc, but let's go one at a time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.23.213 ( talk) 20:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
| Races = | Wins = | Cons_champ = | Drivers_champ = | Teams_champ = | Poles = | Fastest_laps =
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I've opened up an RFC over at Talk:2014 Formula One season to discuss the role of FP1 drivers and whether or not they should be included as season articles. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 05:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Is their currently any user working on the track maps for the new Mexican GP layout, because I'm not so good at creating them and I was wondering if a user had them in the works because they need creating sooner or later. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 16:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Apparently the new race in Azarbaijan that will be added to the calendar will be named Baku European Grand Prix. I was wondering whether we should create a new article for the new race, instead of mixing it up with European Grand Prix, just like we have an article for the United States Grand Prix and one for the United States Grand Prix West. Basically they are different Grands Prix. Tvx1 ( talk) 14:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
An admin is advocating removal of all flags from all F1 articles here and this will be a difficult discussion. He has started removing flags from race reports [9]. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 14:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to draw people's attention to the most recent edit at 1991 Canadian Grand Prix, [10] made by an IP whom I am effectively unable to interact with. He found the official F1 website "highly biased", and we would appreciate some expert input. Thank you. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 19:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:Formula One members who have an opinion regarding the use of flag icons in sports articles may wish to comment in this ongoing discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Formula 1. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 19:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The article has been updated |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it. |
Any recent news on Forza Rossa's F1 entry, I haven't heard or seen anything about the project for months now? Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 21:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
That just goes back to my first point—information will be added if and when it becomes available. If there is no new information available, then what do you expect us to do? Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 01:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
|
The referenced discussion has been closed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it. |
A difficult and tenacious decision regarding Jean-Eric Vergne is ensuing. Any further input would be greatly appreciatied. You can contribute to the discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks. Tvx1 ( talk) 03:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC) |
Can we agree a guideline on when F1 team results should/should not be split out into a separate article? Personally, I'm not convinced that Virgin Racing's results needed to be split out into a separate article. As I recall, the earliest "constructor Grand Prix results" articles were created due to Wikipedia:Article size, but I don't think that applies in this case. DH85868993 ( talk) 07:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)DH85868993
I have nominated Virgin Grand Prix results, Marussia Grand Prix results and Caterham Grand Prix results for deletion. I have been looking through Speedy Question Mark's contributions for any other articles that he might have done a similar thing to, but I cannot find any.
@ Speedy Question Mark: if you wish to make changes of this magnitude in the future, I suggest you establish a consensus first. All you have successfully done is create three totally unnecessary articles, and a whole lot if work for other editors. I also suggest you read the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 22:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The number ten was a purely arbitrary number. What I was really trying to push was the idea that only long-term teams should gave a separate article. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 02:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
We're approaching that time of year when the F1 driver infoboxes will contain information about both the 2014 and 2015 seasons. For the past few years, between seasons, the driver infoboxes have contained fields for "<old season> team", "<old season> car #", "<new season> team" and "<new season> car #", e.g. between the 2013 and 2014 seasons, Felipe Massa's infobox contained:
But now that drivers have permanent numbers, if we continue with our established practice, the "2014 car #" and "2015 car #" fields will be the same for all but two drivers (i.e. Vettel and the 2014 World Champion). So, do we want to continue with our established practice of having both "old season" and "new season" car number fields for every driver, or do we want to change it so that the majority of drivers just have a single "Car number" field, and only those drivers for whom the number is changing have both "2014" and "2015" fields? I'm raising this now because sure as eggs, as soon as the championship is decided (which could be as soon as 7 days time), editors will want to start putting a number 1 in the 2014 Champion's infobox. DH85868993 ( talk) 01:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
A table of "Reasons for retirements" has been added to BAR 01. Is this desirable/necessary? DH85868993 ( talk) 09:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
It has been proposed to add "Drivers' Champion" and "Constructors' Champion" fields to the infobox which is displayed at the top right corner of each F1 season summary article. Please add any comments you may have at Talk:2014_Formula_One_season#Infobox. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 06:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not great with complex markup, so I thought I would raise it here: I just saw the lap chart on the 2014 Brazilian Grand Prix article, and I noticed that Lewis Hamilton has a green colouring, and Nico Hulkenberg an orange one. As Hulkenberg took over from Hamilton, the green and orange appear next to one another in the chart. This is a bit of a problem because I'm red/green colour-blind, which makes it quite difficult to distinguish between the two, and it's a very common condition. If I have trouble with it, others will. Now, we can rely on other stimuli—like the lap numbers—to figure it out, but in terms of visually processing information, it's not a great solution. I'm guessing that the lap charts use colours individually assigned to each driver, so is it worth reconsidering which colours are used for each driver? Hulkenberg's presence would be easier to process with a pale orange, as bold orange and bold green tend to merge together. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 11:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
— Gyaro – Maguus— 13:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
A couple of edits here [11] have removed quotes and basically any hint that Délétraz wasn't all that good. I think we now have a rather sterile article, although some of the wording needed to be changed. Maybe someone with a balanced view could have a look, thanks. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 13:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
An editor recently added "Tyre-gate 2013" into Category:Formula One scandals (they added it directly as text into the category page, which is incorrect, so I reverted it, but it raised some questions in my mind): Was "Tyre-gate 2013" really a scandal? Certainly it was a controversy, but personally I wouldn't describe it as a scandal. Which made me wonder: should Category:Formula One scandals be renamed to Category:Formula One controversies, noting that 3 of the 7 articles in the category are named "XXX controversy" and one of the parent categories is Category:Auto racing controversies? If the category was renamed, would Tyregate then be a suitable inclusion? (Note that I'm not suggesting creating an article for Tyregate; I'm imagining we could just create a redirect to 2013 Formula One season#Tyre issues and put that in the category). DH85868993 ( talk) 06:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering how we should list drivers who took part in a qualifying session, but were afterwards excluded from it. There currently doesn't seem to be a consistent approach to this. 2012 Spanish Grand Prix has Hamilton still on top op the table, whereas 2012 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix and 2014 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix have the excluded drivers on the bottom. 2006 Monaco Grand Prix has Schumacher on the bottom as well but without times listed (although If I remember correctly Schumacher wasn't excluded, but merely demoted to last place). Tvx1 ( talk) 22:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion about what should be done with the Team Lotus (current) redirect, which presently targets Team Lotus (2010–11). Previous discussions about this redirect has not ended in a consensus so more input would be particularly beneficial here. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:00, 30 November 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 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
Hi. I notice that in drivers profiles are numbers will be listed again as "2014 number" and i think that need to be change with "Car number" as from this season every driver will have own number and i think that will be more proper if drivers team and car number are listed as in MotoGP driver profiles as "2014 team" to become "Current team" and "2014 car number" to become "Car number". I'm sorry if i listed this on wrong place i'm new in this :) K.belev ( talk) 12:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I've updated the list of circuits to show this season's tracks, although I did not move Russia in from the proposed tracks section. Strangely, I found that the map of Spa was old. SAS1998― Talk 23:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I thought maybe it's time we update the logo of our Project. After all, it's already eight years old now. Tvx1 ( talk) 21:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
1958 Portuguese Grand Prix lists Casimiro de Oliveira as a non-starter, which is supported by StatsF1 and Grand Prix Guide. But there's no mention of him at formula1.com, ChicaneF1, FORIX or oldracingcars.com. Does anyone have definitive evidence regarding whether or not he was actually entered for the race? Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 02:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that in this article Clay Regazzoni and Jacques Laffite are listed as retired. Instead the got Disqualified after they started in the spare car. I noticed this sentence in particular: Laffite retired on lap 32 and Regazzoni on lap 37 due to suspension problems and low oil pressure respectively, relieving the stewards from having to rule on whether the two were to be disqualified for use of the replacement cars. Even if drivers retire from the race, they will still get Disqualified if they or their team do something illegal. Prize money is also an issue. If you get disqualified you will receive no prize money.
A very reliable source in this matter is Duke’s GRAND PRIX DATA BOOK 1997: This book gives a complete record of all Formula one world Championship races. They also listed Regazzoni and Laffite as Disqualified: C Regazzoni and J Laffite disqualified (after their retirement) for restarting in spare cars. -- Jahn1234567890 ( talk) 22:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Remember Juan Pablo Montoya? Eje Elgh - Raceography? Gary Brabham? It's back again, this time on Denny Hulme. And the editor concerned just want to revert any changes. -- Falcadore ( talk) 00:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It says in many articles that Mercedes-Benz returned to Formula One in 1993 but the engines were only called Mercedes in 1994 meaning that they returned in that year and not 1993, I'm pretty confused did they return in 1993 or 1994? They backed Sauber but had no part in it at all apart from a sticker on the engine cover, And if it was 1994 then a lot of articles need to be corrected to stop confusion because it confused me. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 14:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned that 1932 Tunis Grand Prix and 1933 Tunis Grand Prix are violations of copyright. The entire material appears to be changed little from the source material, even down to the formatting. Any thoughts? -- Falcadore ( talk) 10:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 17:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC).
Is it just me, but is the List of Formula One race edits songs the most trivial F1 article ever attempted? Anyone disagree this should go straight to AFD? -- Falcadore ( talk) 01:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Someone started using Adam Cooper's F1 blog as a source for the article 2015 Formula One season. Do we really want this? Is this considered a reliable source? I would think it fails WP:SPS. Tvx1 ( talk) 14:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Azerbaijan Grand Prix has been nominated for deletion. You may wish to comment in the deletion discussion. -- Falcadore ( talk) 16:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
What File:2001_BMW-Williams_FW23.JPG actually is? Regardless of what the placard says, it's clearly not a FW23; the FW23 did not have those panels over the suspension, the front track is far too wide for a 2001 car, and the rear end isn't even close. The side pods are wrong as well. The paint scheme is correct, albeit possibly a shade or two too light, but that's the only thing that's close. The panels over the suspension appear to come from a FW22, but the front suspension leaves me confused; none of the 1990s Williams used Michelin, and their suspension all appears to be a different shape, whilst the theory of a stretched FW21-style suspension doesn't seem that plausible either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Should the Williams F1 article be moved to Williams Racing to coincide with the Williams Martini Racing partnership excluding Martini due to it being a sponsor, because the Williams team look to have dropped the simple Williams F1 banner on most of their property and are now going with Williams Racing, just a thought share your opinion on this if you think this is a good move. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 16:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
“ | McLaren Racing Limited, trading as Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, is a British Formula One team based in Woking, Surrey, England, United Kingdom. | ” |
I would support a move to Williams Grand Prix Engineering. I am not in favour of a move to Williams Racing since, as others have already mentioned, it is neither the full name of the team or the company, and I think it's too soon to claim is as the common name. DH85868993 ( talk) 06:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I've put on official request for moving the page on Talk:Williams F1. Please feel free to post your opinions there. Tvx1 ( talk) 15:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thai Grand Prix has been nominated for deletion; is there a non-F1 Thai GP? -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 04:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
FYI, List of Formula One Grand Prix Podiums has recently been created. DH85868993 ( talk) 01:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Since when do we use F1.com as a source? It's common knowledge here that it's a basket case of errors. I don't recall any discussion that decided we were going to rely on it. The Australian GP retirements are a case in point, Vettel himself confirming engine failure rather than a more general power unit failure. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 22:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought I had fixed that. It looks like someone changed it back, because of the stupid fixation with perfectly mirroring the sources, even when an exaplanation is needed, as is the case here. "ERS" on its own means nothing - it is an abbreviation of "Energy Recovery System". But, noooo, the source says "ERS", so that is what the article must say. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 05:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that the 2007 Formula One season article carries the following notice:
![]() | This article contains statements that are
anachronistic. |
I would improve the article myself, but I'm not sure which statements the notice is referring to. Tvx1 ( talk) 20:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
In the past few days, a small group of editors have been adding details of Flight MH370 to the 2014 Malaysian Grand Prix. Try as I might, I can find no connection between the race and the missing plane, despite their assertation that the race is controversial. So if you see something, please remove it. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 20:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads up that Template:Infobox former F1 team and Template:Infobox F1 team have been considered for merging here. Craig (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor has suggested that a separate article be created for the Ferrari F310B (i.e. rather than the F310B being covered in the Ferrari F310 article). You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Ferrari F310#Seperate article for F310B. DH85868993 ( talk) 08:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It's been brought to my attention, that the scope of WP:F1 is not well clarified. It says upfront that the scope is all articles to do with Formula One, but I've found an editor removing WP:F1 tags from article talk pages on the understanding that WP:F1 is for the World Championship from 1950 onwards exclusively. Would it be possible to clarify this? -- Falcadore ( talk) 07:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we should provide a "classification" also for remaining licence points for each driver. Since April 2nd, 2014 Bottas, Magnussen and Bianchi were given 2 points out of 12 of penalty during Malaysian GP. When the licence is down to 0 pts, a driver will be disqualified for the next GP, and will return racing with just 7 points. 12 points threshold will be restored after 12 months without further penalties, so the licence could influence also the 2015 season, and so on. What do you think about it? RickyPV89 ( talk) 09:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason why the colors in standings look so awkward? Gold: , Silver: , Bronze: . Those colors look very different from those used in other sports pages (e.g. Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics, 2014 World Figure Skating Championships): Gold: , Silver: , Bronze: . Is there a particular reason for this? -- bender235 ( talk) 11:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I note that Formula One circit articles are acquireing tables of Grand Prix winners, duplicating the list of winners at the Grand Prix articles. Is this something we want to see? -- Falcadore ( talk) 22:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
There has been a long debate at Talk:2014 Formula One season on wether or not remove the official race titles from the season calendar on the Formula one season articles. We would appreciate further input so that we might come to a speedy conclusion. Thanks, Tvx1 ( talk) 13:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Template:Stefan Grand Prix has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 00:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
An editor has proposed that Haas Racing Developments (currently a redirect to Stewart-Haas Racing) become a separate article. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 11#Haas Racing Developments. DH85868993 ( talk) 04:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The use of flags in sport articles is being discussed again at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Proposed_change_to_MOSFLAG_for_sport_articles, in case anyone is interested. DH85868993 ( talk) 09:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Most of the F1 season articles from the 50s, 60s, and 70 contain tables with a list of non-championship. However not all of these races were held to Formula One rules (some of the articles even contain world championship races which weren't held to Formula One rules). There's nothing in these tables though making it clear which races were held to which rules. So, I was wondering wether it would be worth considering to add a "class" column of some sorts to be able to convey this information to the readers. Tvx1 ( talk) 16:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Sources disagree regarding Robert La Caze's nationality. I have started a discussion at Talk:Robert La Caze#Nationality. DH85868993 ( talk) 10:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I've had a look over the different race track articles and the one that stands out is the Red Bull Ring as most of the information on that article is outdated and quite messy, the images on that article are all over the place making the sections look quite awkward, so I'm planning a article revamp so if any user here wants to help out or voice their opinion on this matter please respond their comment here. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 16:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Project members may be interested in/able to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:MOTOR#Historic_F1_Championships. DH85868993 ( talk) 08:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Has the return of the European Grand Prix in 2016 been officially confirmed yet? Because a couple of articles have been updated as though it has and I wanted to know whether I should revert the changes or not. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 13:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
In the past, it has taken an announcement from Bernie Ecclestone and/or FOM to be considered confirmed. After all, Ecclestone is the authority on the calendar, and the only person whom we can be absolutely certain is in a position to confirm a new race. Final confirmation comes from the FIA, but it is Ecclestone who compiles and submits the new calendar for their consideration. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 01:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 11:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to let everyone know that a page for Forza Rossa has been created. JohnMcButts ( talk) 17:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
This chap [7] is yet again adding what I consider to be excess detail regarding fatal injuries to racing drivers. At the very least the additions are largely unsourced. I would like the opinion of the project on whether I am being too sensitive here. I just think that although we are not censored this is too much detail for a general encyclopedia. Britmax ( talk) 17:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
This article was promoted to FA in 2007 when standards were considerably looser than they are now. It is due to run as TFA on 11 June. There is a need for more citations, especially in the 1974–77: Shadow section. Can any of you help? It would be good to have this looking its best before it appears on the front page. -- John ( talk) 19:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
See Template_talk:F1_race_report#Fastest_average_speed_fields. DH85868993 ( talk) 13:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Numerous of season articles, as well as the Belgian Grand Prix and the Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps articles claim the aforementioned circuit to be situated in Spa or even Francorchamps, Spa. This is incorrect however as the town of Francorchamps where the circuit is situated is a part of the municipality of Stavelot and not that of Spa. You can find a [map of the municipal territory of Stavelot http://www.stavelot.be/files/gallery/carte_stav_fran_gd1193069403.gif] via a link on that page. This should be corrected in the affected articles.
In the past two weeks or so, the mobile version of Wikipedia has gotten some updates. As a result of this, some of the old mark-up parameters no longer work in mobile browsers, specifically the background colours in results table, which now appear as white spaces. I asked about this at WP:VPT, and was advised that the mark-up code bgcolor="#XXXXXX" no longer works for mobiles (and may eventually be phased out for the full site). Instead, the new mark-up is style="background-color:#XXXXXX". I appreciate that applying this to every single article that would require it is perhaps too much to ask; however, during the endless debate over reformatting the team and driver table, one of the things that almost everyone agreed upon was that if there is a way to do things to benefit both mobile and regular readers, then we should absolutely do it. So even if we cannot retroactively apply the new mark-up, can we all please use make a conscious effort to use it from now on? I have updated the 2014 season article to use it. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 10:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Starting up a conversation here because a potential issue is brewing over at 2014 Canadian Grand Prix. Kobayashi and Gutierrez got penalties after qualifying, which is represented through the usual means of footnoting. However, there is some debate between User:Tvx1 and myself over the order that these penalties appear. The current version lists Gutierrez's penalties as #1 and #2 and Kobayashi's penalty as #3 because Gutierrez was given the penalties first. However, this has created a situation where footnote #3 appears before footnotes #1 and #2, as Kobayashi started further up the grid than Gutierrez. Tvx1's argument is that penalties should be listed according to when they were issued. However, I feel this has the potential to cause problems, particularly if we get a race with lots of penalties, like the 2009 Japanese Grand Prix. The qualifying table has always shown the final version of the grid, regardless of how many revisions are made. The final "Grid" column is there to show any changes that result from penalties. The order that penalties are applied has no impact on the table, simply because the table shows that final version of the grid. Therefore, listing penalties in the order they are applied makes no sense to me as all it does is list the footnotes out of order. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 04:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand the argument that Tvx is trying to make, that in the event of multiple penalties, a driver might be given five places, but effectively lose three because someone else got a penalty. However, Pyrope is correct in pointing out that the footnotes are supplementary information at best. When they appear in the table, all they do is direct the reader's attention to the discrepancy between qualifying position and starting position, with prose to explain it - and that prose can explain whatever we need it to explain. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 22:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
We currently have some inconsistency between articles regarding Patrick Nève and Bernard de Dryver's participation in the 1978 Belgian Grand Prix - they are listed as non-prequalifiers in Patrick Nève, Bernard de Dryver and March Grand Prix results but not listed in the race article, season summary article or Ensign Racing. Sources such as ChicaneF1, grandprix.com, StatsF1, ESPN, historicracing.com and Autosport's Nostalgia Forum variously identify them as non-prequalifiers/non-qualifiers/no-shows but other sources such as formula1.com, FORIX and Mike Lang's Grand Prix! make no mention of them at all (but do mention Rebaque and Merzario as non-prequalifiers). Are the sources which say they were entered for the race sufficient to include them in all the relevant articles (and if so, should they be shown as DNPQ, DNP or DNA)? Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Lately I have noticed that there is a glitch in the Template:Infobox Grand Prix race report. The width of the "date" field starts expanding and contracting. It is fine in the bare-bones version added to articles before the race, but once details of qualifying and the race are added, it starts expanding and contracting, and I am unsure of how to fix it. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 05:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
FYI, Category:1949 in Formula One and Category:1949 Formula One races have been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 21:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Some of you may have noticed the recent addition of "car number" columns to various F1 team results tables, e.g. EuroBrun. Today I noticed the addition of a "car number" column to a driver results table ( Martin_Brundle#Complete_Formula_One_results). I think we should consider whether we want car number columns in driver results tables and, if so, whether we care if some drivers have them and some don't. Noting that none of our standard results table formats include a "car number" column (but also noting that none of the standard tables include driver flagicons, whereas many of the individual results tables in the F1 team/car articles do). DH85868993 ( talk) 23:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed the recent addition of "timeline" tables to Formula One drivers from Austria, Formula One drivers from Australia, Formula One drivers from New Zealand, Formula One drivers from Spain, Formula One drivers from Finland and Formula One drivers from Canada. Do we think this is useful information? DH85868993 ( talk) 02:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Currently their is Endurance Sports car information mixed up with the Grand Prix/Formula One information in the Mercedes-Benz in Formula One Template and I was wondering if I should remove it but I posted this here to see your view beforehand. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 19:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Does his place of residence need revision now he works for Williams? Britmax ( talk) 20:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I am wondering if there is any previous discussion regarding the layout of circuit maps, and how simpler ones could be used. I am considering improving some of the ones such as the Spa track map, as it looks cluttered in the infoboxes. SAS1998― Talk 15:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Please answer here, if you can: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#107.25_rule_in_motorsport Outer Image ( talk) 16:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This user may have been caught early in a random changes spree. Eyes open, please. Britmax ( talk) 16:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The En.Wikipedia is the matrix for the other articles from other wikipedias, and the projects here are more active, which is why perhaps coming here directly could be better. I have no account in the wiki of my language, but I follow the articles and already contributed to many of them, and I intend to start a discussion that perhaps generates very profound changes in all of them, so I want to start it in the wiki where it all began.
Not just talking about Formula-1, but everywhere, companies can be sold at any time, but nobody says it ends, just because of the change of the owner. Companies can also change their name, and nobody says it ends just because their name has changed. In F-1, on the other hand, there is some confusion in this concept.
For example Footwork Arrows and Arrows Grand Prix International are or not the same team with different owners? And Minardi? The Minardi team was sold to Red Bull and changed its name to Scuderia Toro Rosso, or just sold the space available and the equipment instead of the institution?
This is relevant because in my opinion we should have a article for each institution, regardless of the name they had over time. On the other hand, also know that often, when we say in the jargon of F-1 that a team was "sold", it's not the staff, institution, pt:Pessoa jurídica, but only the structure of it.
But for this you need to set some objective criteria to know when the team finishes, and another comes in its place, or when it only changes its name. In Formula 1, various racing teams are sold and remain with the same name. Others are sold, and changes its name. In any case, the simple fact of being sold does not generate a new team. The change of owners does a team ceases to exist. I think that there should be an article for every company, not for each "name".
On the other hand, I doubt if all sales are actually selling the company, or merely selling the space in F-1. Look Renault F1 Team (2002–2010) redirect to Renault in Formula One. In Portuguese, pt:Renault F1 redirects for Lotus F1 Team. The two Renault are not the same scuderia, are they? Team Lotus (2010–11) is Caterham F1 with other name. In Portuguese Team Lotus redirect for Caterham F1 Team.
Lotus Renault is Renault? Lotus Renault is a team which existed for only one year? Or are current Lotus F1, that should not be confused with the old Team Lotus?
I don't know what should be the criterion, but it seems to me that independent of what it is, it should be a single criterion, which did not require a DISCUSSION everytime to made it good. I believe the best criterion would be to use Taxpayer Identification Number or other National identification number (in Brazil are the pt:CNPJ) or the equivalent register in each country of pt:junta comercial.
Depending on the progress of this discussion, I want to launch this discussion in Basqueteball Project in relation to "Franchises" that change of name and the host city, as New Orleans Pelicans, Charlotte Hornets e Charlotte Bobcats, because these articles are a mess.
Texto original em Português
A En.Wikipedia é a matriz para os outros artigos das outras wikipedias, e os projetos daqui são os mais ativos, razão pela qual talvez vir diretamente aqui seja o mais produtivo. Não tenho conta na wiki da minha língua, mas acompanho os artigos, ja contribuí com muitos deles, e a discussão que pretendo iniciar pode gerar uma modificação talvez muito profunda em todos eles, então quero iniciá-la na wiki onde tudo começou.
Não falando apenas a nível de F-1, mas a nível geral, uma empresa (qualquer uma) pode ser vendida a qualquer momento, e nem por isso se diz que ela acaba, por causa da mudança de dono. Empresas também podem mudar de nome, e nem por isso se diz que elas acabaram, porque o nome mudou. Na F-1, por outro lado, há uma certa confusão nesse conceito.
Por exemplo Footwork Arrows e a Arrows Grand Prix International são ou não a mesma equipe, com donos diferentes? E a Minardi? A Minardi foi vendida para a Red Bull e mudou de nome para Scuderia Toro Rosso, ou só venderam a vaga e os equipamentos, ao invés da instituição?
Isso tem relevância pois na minha opinião deveríamos ter um artigo para cada instituição, independentemente do nome que elas tiveram ao longo do tempo. Por outro lado, também sei que muitas vezes, quando se diz no jargão da F-1 que quando uma equipe foi "vendida", não foi a equipe, instituição, a pt:Pessoa jurídica, mas sim apenas a estrutura dela.
Mas para isso, é preciso definir algum critério objetivo para saber quando a equipe acaba, e surge outra em seu lugar, e quando ela apenas muda de nome. Na Formula 1, diversas escuderias são vendidas e permanecem com o mesmo nome. Outras, são vendidas, e mudam de nome. Em todo o caso, o simples fato de ser vendida não gera uma equipe nova. A mudança de donos não faz uma equipe deixar de existir. Penso que deve existir um artigo para cada empresa, não para cada "nome".
Por outro lado, tenho dúvidas se todas as vendas são realmente vendas da empresa, ou meras venda de vaga. Vejam Renault F1 Team (2002–2010) redireciona para Renault in Formula One. Em Português, pt:Renault F1 redireciona para Lotus F1 Team. As duas Renault não são a mesma empresa, são? Team Lotus (2010–11) nada mais é que a Caterham F1 com outro nome. Em Português Team Lotus redireciona para Caterham F1 Team.
Lotus Renault é a Renault? Lotus Renault é uma equipe que existiu por apenas um ano? Ou é a Lotus F1 atual, que não deve ser confundida com a antiga Team Lotus?
Não sei qual deve ser o critério, mas me parece que qualquer que seja, deveria ser um critério único, que não obrigasse essa mesma discusão a ser feita sempre. Acredito que o melhor critério seria usar o Taxpayer Identification Number ou outro National identification number (que no Brasil é o pt:CNPJ) ou o registro equivalente em cada país da pt:junta comercial.
Dependendo do andamento dessa discussão, eu quero lançar essa discussão no Projeto Basqueteball em relação às "franquias" que mudam de nome e cidade-sede, como New Orleans Pelicans, Charlotte Hornets e Charlotte Bobcats, pois estes artigos estão uma grande confusão. 187.74.206.156 ( talk) 21:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
We have typically named and separated articles based on the constructor name, which is the name the FIA credits all results to, regardless of the ownership or any structural changes to the team. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 10:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
And it is called the "World Constructors Championship" for a reason. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 06:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
In theory, the franchise can be sold to the formation of a new team ( Subsidiary company), or to be occupied by a scuderia which actually is not a subsidiary, but only one sector of a larger company. Or the company subsidiary can be sold to another owner, who just change the company name. See what I mean? As I said, I do not intend to modify the Articles of Wiki-en, just explain it better, at least in the Wiki-pt. Iank Peldeva 30All ( talk) 02:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
An editor has stated that the Brawn BGP 001 should be referred to as the "Brawn GP BGP 001" (and updated the article contents accordingly). You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Brawn BGP 001#Brawn GP BGP 001 title incorrect.. DH85868993 ( talk) 13:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
There has been a tedious debate at Talk:2014 Formula One season with regard to the inclusion of information in the table for the FIA Pole Trophy. We would appreciate further input so that we might come to a speedy conclusion. You can bring your input here. Thanks, Tvx1 ( talk) 12:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
All the "2014 Grand Prix of XXX" redirects have been nominated for discussion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the discussion. Note that these are the (unused) "2014 Grand Prix of XXX" redirects, not the "2014 XXX Grand Prix" redirects (which will be converted into articles in the fullness of time). DH85868993 ( talk) 01:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Lately I have noticed a few edits from IP addresses that are describing the 2014 noses as "phallic" like this one. I suppose that, on a certain level, there is a truth to it, but at the same time, there are so many other ways to describe the noses; "finger-like", "anteater" and "alien" all spring to mind. And so I think the use of "phallic" is essentially trolling; however, I can't report the editors as IP vandals, since it's always a different address, and it's entirely plausible that this is a genuine (if misguided) attempt to improve the article.
So, can we all be on the look-out for these edits and revert them? Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 06:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated {{ 2013 F1 Drivers Standings}} (which redirects to {{ F1 Drivers Standings}}) and {{ 2013 F1 Constructors Standings}} (which redirects to {{ F1 Constructors Standings}}) for deletion, on the basis that they are unused and misleading. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 10:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
2016 Formula One season has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the deletion discussion. Tvx1 ( talk) 15:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
A user, User:Haken arizona is currently insisting that the 2014 German Grand Prix article should include details of crowd attendance figures. This is something that we have never really done before, as crowd figures aren't usually reported by event organisers. But is it something that we should consider?
Personally, I say no. Crowd attendance figures have no bearing on the outcome of the race. It doesn't matter if 10 people or 10,000 people buy tickets; the race will still be run, and competitors will still compete. Furthermore, the justification for including the figures for Hockenheim is that it was a talking point at the time, which is a clear-cut case of RECENTISM if ever I have heard one. Sure, Toto Wolff wasn't happy with the low turn-out on Friday, but it was the middle of the workday, and lots of people had already taken the Monday off work to watch the World Cup final. And yes, Flavio Briatore was recruited to investigate ways of making the sport more popular, but the idea was quickly (and quietly) abandoned. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 21:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I am member haken Arizona, Looks like you don't want any additional information posted on your formula one event pages. This is contrary to what Wikipedia stands for. You are letting your ego get in the way. Look up older GP events on Wikipedia, they are full of information. But you insist only the results of the race should be present.(UTC)
I'd hardly call this instance controversial. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 01:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I never knew the template had an attendance field before. Presumably somebody thought it was relevant at some point in time then. I'm a little cautious about the figures as they can be notoriously unreliable (particularly in America), but if they're sourced then we should probably include them. QueenCake ( talk) 19:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Prisonermonkeys member keeps erasing my attendance data. It is properly sourced trough respectable source BBC. I believe any fact about the grand prix event is worth being in encyclopedia. Attendance was a major factor of why Korean GP was canceled. Now 3 years in a row German GP is seeing very low number even with german winning car and driver. Attendance mattered so much that it prompted various F1 management people to question the future of the sport. Also german GP tickets were heavily discounted do to the soccer win. User:Haken arizona UTC — Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
That is what I am saying prisonermonkeys keeps erasing my edit just because he is on a mobile phone and can't do it, what a joke, User:Haken arizona UTC — Preceding undated comment added 03:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that our friend Todd Abedrabbo may be carrying on his fixation with excessively detailed accident descriptions as an IP. He may just be editing while logged out in error. Would someone keep an eye on this as it's late here now and I am off to bed. Britmax ( talk) 01:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a bit of an odd one - there is a subject that, for the moment, is purely hypothetical, but should it be realised, then I feel it has the potential to become an issue for some articles, and that it would be pertinent to have a plan to address it to minimise disruption.
In the coming weeks and months, there are two referendums in Europe that have the potential to affect races. Firstly, Scotland is voting on independence, and so too is Catalonia. In the event that either or both referendum is successful, then it has the potential to affect the British and Spanish Grands Prix - specifically, their names. The British Grand Prix could become the English Grand Prix; likewise, the Spanish could become the Catalonian.
Now, I understand that both referendums are yet to be held, and that a successful yes vote is no guarantee of a name change. So, for now, we should wait and see. But for the purposes of this discussion, I think we should assume that both will be successful, that both will require name changes, and come up with a plan to address it, given the potential for confusion and vandalism. After all, I can find no precedent for this - new nations don't form very often, and no race has ever been affected until now.
The Barcelona one is easy enough; it was in Spain and will be in Catalonia, and so a new page would be needed, with a high degree of interconnectivity between them. But Silverstone is a harder proposition - Scotland would be achieving independence, and so the race would effectively remain exactly the same, but running under a new name, and I have no idea how to address that.
Thoughts? Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 04:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Pyrope, as established editors, I am surprised that neither you nor Falcadore recognised the potential for instability and disruption that an event such as this should it come to pass, particularly among the more inexperienced editors. Especially since it was you two who taught me to edit with one eye on the future, and to consider what an article will look like a day from now, a year from now, and a decade from now.
I am well aware that I am forecasting a very precise set of circumstances, and that those circumstances are unlikely to pass. But well do I remember the problems we had in 2009 when foreign-language sources started reporting that Alonso was moving to Ferrari in 2010 months before it was confirmed. We probably never anticipated that being a problem in 2008, and so nothing was really done about it until the 2010 article was constantly being edited back and forth. If we had seen it coming, we probably would have done something about it.
Hell, we have that problem right now " Baku Street Circuit" can refer to any one of three circuits, and until such time as the new circuit is named, there is a conflict.
So you can keep calling it speculation if you like. But I see it as anticipating potential issues, and trying to come up with a solution in advance so that it is less of a problem if it comes to pass. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 04:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
An editor has added car number columns to 1950_Formula_One_season#Teams_and_drivers and 1951_Formula_One_season#Teams_and_drivers. Given that the car numbers changed from race to race, do we think this is useful/necessary information? (I thought I'd raise it here because the decision has the potential to affect every season summary article before 1974, when race numbers were standardised). DH85868993 ( talk) 20:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Do we really need to list every application of the rule? How long is this going to make the article by about 2020? Britmax ( talk) 11:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
107% rule after adoption by first qualifying round (from 2011) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | Event | Q1 fastest time | 107% time | Driver | Team | Time | % of fastest | Allowed to race? |
2014 | British Grand Prix | 1:40.380 | 1:47.406 |
![]() |
![]() |
1:49.421 | 109.006 | Yes |
![]() |
1:49.625 | 109.210 | Yes |
Mharris99 ( talk) 14:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
So does anyone object to me removing all the "no time set" and "excluded" entries? Tvx1 ( talk) 17:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Since it's around the time of the year that next season's calendar will start appear in the sources and FIA will publish the official provisional calendar, I think it's a good moment to try an achieve a consensus on a matter that has been well-discussed in the past but that never appears to have reached a consensus. I'll put it plain and simple: when should we change our list of contracted races on a future season's article to the familiar calendar format? Do we do this when some preliminary draft appears in the sources, our do we wait until the FIA officially publishes the (provisional) calendar? Take into account WP:NOTNEWS, I think we should wait for the FIA calendar. Please feel free to share your opinions on the matter. Tvx1 ( talk) 17:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see what the problem is, since any calendar - be it a draft or the final version - needs to be approved by the World Motorsport Council before it is published.
And I find the argument that that particular draft was invalid because there was nothing prior on certain races having a contract when you are also arguing that Wikipedia is not news. If a calendar published by FOM with the approval of the WMSC contains a race that had not previously been discussed, then surely the authority of FOM and the WMSC could be used in lieu of an announcement from organisers. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 06:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
In the past few months, the wiki markup bgcolor="#XXXXXX" has stopped working for mobile browsers, as it is no longer supported. It has been replaced by style=background-color:"#XXXXXX", which some of you may recognise as the markup being used in the results matrices on the 2014 season article. The issue has been raised at VPT, who have recognised it as a bug. Their explanation of why it has happened was a little too technical for me, but as I understand it, the problem may expand to affect non-mobile users as well.
Recent discussions with other users has revealed the extent of this problem. It affects every season, driver, team and car article in almost every motorsport discipline. I cannot begin to fathom where else it might be used across Wikipedia, much less the extent of it. As such, the problem is too extensive to be fixed by us and us alone. In concert with a few other users, it has been decided that the most efficient way forward is to put in a WP:BOTREQUEST to repair the problem. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 00:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
style=background-color:"#XXXXXX"
won't work, see my comments at
WP:BOTREQ#Request to fix "bgcolor" markup. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 12:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)While doing some reading I came across the Cosworth article. This article currently contains two tables claiming to list Cosworth entire F1 supplies. The first is in a section called "Complete Formula One World Championship results]]. But in contrary to what the section title claims in contains only the first six seasons of their F1 participation. Just beneath this table there is another one listing their customers per season. This last one seems to be the more relevant one to me since they are a mere engine supplier. However, the information in this list contradicts the information in the former table (that is, for the seasons that are present in both tables). Furthermore some information seems to be wrong. For instance, the table claims that Cosworth's 1965 customers were the Lotus and Cooper teams, while in reality they used Coventry Climax engines. DH85868993 already questioned the first table on the article's talk page, but that is three years ago now, and they never received any reaction to their concern. Needless to say, the tables need some urgent expanding/correcting to make them accurate/complete. I would have done it myself, but I thought i'd raise the issue first to make sure which table is preferred and in case of the former table, if we want to complete that one whether we should move it to a separate article. Tvx1 ( talk) 15:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
An editor has suggested adding coloured backgrounds for the "Pos" cells in the race results tables in F1 race report articles - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Tables#Race_results_on_event_page. In the interests of keeping the discussion in one place, please add any comments there. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 22:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Not wishing to jump the gun, but I guess that in the event of a yes vote for Scottish independence tomorrow (results likely confirmed early on Friday morning in the UK), we could expect to see a rash of editors 'updating' flags associated with historical results from the UK flag to the Scottish one.
My assumption is that all stays as it is for now with the UK flag used for all historic and current UK drivers. In the event of a yes vote - but possibly not for a year or two - it would become clear how the FIA will treat Scottish and 'rest of' UK drivers in the future and we can make appropriate changes.
I do note the conversation at the top of the page about race naming - the only reason for mentioning this now is to be sure we have a common line on whether to revert changes to flags to the current status quo until such time as the future position becomes clear. -- 4u1e ( talk) 11:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I will also note that Scotland will not be independent immediately upon the result of the referendum – the actual independence will take place sometime in 2016. However, whether the FIA decides to allow Scottish nationality before then is a different matter entirely, and again, we follow the sources. — Gyaro – Maguus— 12:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Tvx1, it has nothing to do with passports, it has to do with which national motorsport authority issued the driver their racing license. "For the purposes of this Code the “nationality” of a competitor or driver is that of the ASN which issued him with his FIA licence (see Article 112)." and "A parent ASN is the ASN of the country of which the licence-holder is a national. In the case of a professional competitor or driver as defined by article 18 of the present Code, a parent ASN may also be the ASN of the E.U. country of which the licence-holder is a bonafide permanent resident." ( http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/C57D2C7837004DC3C125734B0032A5A2/$FILE/CSI%2024.10.2006%20modif%20ap%20AGO%20oct%2006%20revu%2016.05.07ANG.pdf) There is no requirement that you be a full citizen of a European country in order to obtain a license from said country.
To further the point, Scotland would need to create their own ASN in order to issue Scottish racing licenses. However there is nothing stopping a Scottish citizen from maintaining a British racing license if they hold dual citizenship and choose to represent Britain. The359 ( Talk) 19:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
“ | 112. Nationality of a competitor or driver As far as the application of this Code is concerned, every competitor or driver who has obtained their licence from an ASN takes the nationality of that ASN for the period of validity of that licence. All drivers, irrespective of the nationality of their licence, participating in any FIA World Championship event, shall retain the nationality of their passport in all official documents, meetings, information bulletins and prize-giving ceremonies. |
” |
It doesn't matter - Scotland has voted to stay in the Union. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 06:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cockpit Manager '14 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockpit Manager '14 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DH85868993 ( talk) 13:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I must say I'm very surprised by the lack of car sub-categories. We have them by season, and even Category:Formula One cars that never raced, but we don't have them by capability or achievement.
I've requested a category for Category:Formula_One_championship-winning_cars, and there appear to be no takers for creating it. Seems an obvious partner to Category:Formula One World Drivers' Champions...
Another one would be "Turbo F1 cars", "Hybrid F1 cars", or "Cars running slick tyres", etc, but let's go one at a time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.23.213 ( talk) 20:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
| Races = | Wins = | Cons_champ = | Drivers_champ = | Teams_champ = | Poles = | Fastest_laps =
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I've opened up an RFC over at Talk:2014 Formula One season to discuss the role of FP1 drivers and whether or not they should be included as season articles. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 05:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Is their currently any user working on the track maps for the new Mexican GP layout, because I'm not so good at creating them and I was wondering if a user had them in the works because they need creating sooner or later. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 16:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Apparently the new race in Azarbaijan that will be added to the calendar will be named Baku European Grand Prix. I was wondering whether we should create a new article for the new race, instead of mixing it up with European Grand Prix, just like we have an article for the United States Grand Prix and one for the United States Grand Prix West. Basically they are different Grands Prix. Tvx1 ( talk) 14:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
An admin is advocating removal of all flags from all F1 articles here and this will be a difficult discussion. He has started removing flags from race reports [9]. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 14:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to draw people's attention to the most recent edit at 1991 Canadian Grand Prix, [10] made by an IP whom I am effectively unable to interact with. He found the official F1 website "highly biased", and we would appreciate some expert input. Thank you. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 19:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:Formula One members who have an opinion regarding the use of flag icons in sports articles may wish to comment in this ongoing discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Formula 1. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 19:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The article has been updated |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it. |
Any recent news on Forza Rossa's F1 entry, I haven't heard or seen anything about the project for months now? Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 21:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
That just goes back to my first point—information will be added if and when it becomes available. If there is no new information available, then what do you expect us to do? Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 01:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
|
The referenced discussion has been closed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it. |
A difficult and tenacious decision regarding Jean-Eric Vergne is ensuing. Any further input would be greatly appreciatied. You can contribute to the discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks. Tvx1 ( talk) 03:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC) |
Can we agree a guideline on when F1 team results should/should not be split out into a separate article? Personally, I'm not convinced that Virgin Racing's results needed to be split out into a separate article. As I recall, the earliest "constructor Grand Prix results" articles were created due to Wikipedia:Article size, but I don't think that applies in this case. DH85868993 ( talk) 07:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)DH85868993
I have nominated Virgin Grand Prix results, Marussia Grand Prix results and Caterham Grand Prix results for deletion. I have been looking through Speedy Question Mark's contributions for any other articles that he might have done a similar thing to, but I cannot find any.
@ Speedy Question Mark: if you wish to make changes of this magnitude in the future, I suggest you establish a consensus first. All you have successfully done is create three totally unnecessary articles, and a whole lot if work for other editors. I also suggest you read the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 22:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The number ten was a purely arbitrary number. What I was really trying to push was the idea that only long-term teams should gave a separate article. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 02:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
We're approaching that time of year when the F1 driver infoboxes will contain information about both the 2014 and 2015 seasons. For the past few years, between seasons, the driver infoboxes have contained fields for "<old season> team", "<old season> car #", "<new season> team" and "<new season> car #", e.g. between the 2013 and 2014 seasons, Felipe Massa's infobox contained:
But now that drivers have permanent numbers, if we continue with our established practice, the "2014 car #" and "2015 car #" fields will be the same for all but two drivers (i.e. Vettel and the 2014 World Champion). So, do we want to continue with our established practice of having both "old season" and "new season" car number fields for every driver, or do we want to change it so that the majority of drivers just have a single "Car number" field, and only those drivers for whom the number is changing have both "2014" and "2015" fields? I'm raising this now because sure as eggs, as soon as the championship is decided (which could be as soon as 7 days time), editors will want to start putting a number 1 in the 2014 Champion's infobox. DH85868993 ( talk) 01:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
A table of "Reasons for retirements" has been added to BAR 01. Is this desirable/necessary? DH85868993 ( talk) 09:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
It has been proposed to add "Drivers' Champion" and "Constructors' Champion" fields to the infobox which is displayed at the top right corner of each F1 season summary article. Please add any comments you may have at Talk:2014_Formula_One_season#Infobox. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 06:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not great with complex markup, so I thought I would raise it here: I just saw the lap chart on the 2014 Brazilian Grand Prix article, and I noticed that Lewis Hamilton has a green colouring, and Nico Hulkenberg an orange one. As Hulkenberg took over from Hamilton, the green and orange appear next to one another in the chart. This is a bit of a problem because I'm red/green colour-blind, which makes it quite difficult to distinguish between the two, and it's a very common condition. If I have trouble with it, others will. Now, we can rely on other stimuli—like the lap numbers—to figure it out, but in terms of visually processing information, it's not a great solution. I'm guessing that the lap charts use colours individually assigned to each driver, so is it worth reconsidering which colours are used for each driver? Hulkenberg's presence would be easier to process with a pale orange, as bold orange and bold green tend to merge together. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 11:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
— Gyaro – Maguus— 13:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
A couple of edits here [11] have removed quotes and basically any hint that Délétraz wasn't all that good. I think we now have a rather sterile article, although some of the wording needed to be changed. Maybe someone with a balanced view could have a look, thanks. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 13:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
An editor recently added "Tyre-gate 2013" into Category:Formula One scandals (they added it directly as text into the category page, which is incorrect, so I reverted it, but it raised some questions in my mind): Was "Tyre-gate 2013" really a scandal? Certainly it was a controversy, but personally I wouldn't describe it as a scandal. Which made me wonder: should Category:Formula One scandals be renamed to Category:Formula One controversies, noting that 3 of the 7 articles in the category are named "XXX controversy" and one of the parent categories is Category:Auto racing controversies? If the category was renamed, would Tyregate then be a suitable inclusion? (Note that I'm not suggesting creating an article for Tyregate; I'm imagining we could just create a redirect to 2013 Formula One season#Tyre issues and put that in the category). DH85868993 ( talk) 06:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering how we should list drivers who took part in a qualifying session, but were afterwards excluded from it. There currently doesn't seem to be a consistent approach to this. 2012 Spanish Grand Prix has Hamilton still on top op the table, whereas 2012 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix and 2014 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix have the excluded drivers on the bottom. 2006 Monaco Grand Prix has Schumacher on the bottom as well but without times listed (although If I remember correctly Schumacher wasn't excluded, but merely demoted to last place). Tvx1 ( talk) 22:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion about what should be done with the Team Lotus (current) redirect, which presently targets Team Lotus (2010–11). Previous discussions about this redirect has not ended in a consensus so more input would be particularly beneficial here. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)