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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
As some of you may be aware, the F1 Rejects site is now offline, which means all the links to it (of which there are a few) are now broken. One solution would be to replace the existing links with links to the archived versions of the pages at archive.org. I'll probably get around to doing it eventually, but I thought I'd mention it here in case anyone was looking for a little project to undertake over the holiday period. Regards. DH85868993 ( talk) 08:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I have proposed that the recently-created Iso-Marlboro FX3B be renamed to Politoys FX3 per our standard practice of naming articles after the car's original name. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the rename discussion. Regards. DH85868993 ( talk) 08:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Something I probably should have sorted out before I started fixing all the broken formula1.com links (but better late than never, right?): What do we think are the appropriate values for the "work", "website" and "publisher" parameters in formula1.com references?
I think it makes sense to standardise. Thoughts? DH85868993 ( talk) 00:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Someone has moved the article Manor Motorsport to Manor Grand Prix Racing Ltd. Is this is an action we desire? T v x1 16:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I have proposed a change to the wording of the "Season in progress" footnotes which accompany motorsport results tables which the season is still in progress. Interested editors are invited to comment at the centralised discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 21:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
As I've been going through the F1 race reports unbreaking the formula1.com links, I've noticed we have some inconsistency regarding the section heading for the Championship standings sections. There's a mixture of "Standings after the race", "Championship standings after the race", "Drivers' Championship standings after the race" (pre-1958) and "Standings after Grand Prix". I think it makes sense to use a standard section heading for all the race reports (I'm happy to do the work - it should be pretty easy using AWB). My preference is for "Championship standings after the race", except for the 1950-60 Indianapolis 500 races, where I think it should be "World Drivers' Championship standings after the race", to clarify that it's the standings in the World Drivers' Championship, not the Champcar championship. Thoughts? DH85868993 ( talk) 09:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe the race results tables for all the WDC races (except maybe a few of the Indy 500s) now have a "Source" row. But some of the Qualifying tables don't. Can anyone suggest a good source for qualifying results before 2003? (formula1.com has qualifying results for 2003 onwards). Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 06:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The featured content on the WikiProject's front page is outdated and will require attention. Who agrees? Z105space (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Because I want to use an image for the Draft:Paul Rosche article, so how possible is it to use the images from the press releases on the right of this press release. Because I don't know if press release images are copyrighted, if so, what right am I covered under? Thanks in advance. Donnie Park ( talk) 21:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Some of the F1 race reports use the formula1.com live timing popups as a reference for the weather information. All these live timing popups are now dead links. Archived versions of the popups exist at www.archive.org, but they don't seem to work on my computer. Does this link work for other people? (If the links work for other people, I'll add the archive link to the references, otherwise I'll try to find a different reference). Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 23:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
An editor ( Holdenman05) added the FP results to 2015 Australian Grand Prix. We have not done so so far. Should we start doing it now? I would opt against it, I just don't see the relevance. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 11:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, recent regulation changes enacted in 2015 changed grid starting positions for drivers that fail to set a qualifying time in Q2 or Q3 from previous season's Driver standings to quicker FP3 time. So to say that FP has no bearing on the race is not necessarily true anymore. Twirly Pen ( Speak up) 08:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi all. As some of you may have noticed, I am currently adding sources (the archived formula1.com race results page) to the race results tables in all the (WDC) F1 race reports - so far I've done up to 1972. Since I'm already editing all the race reports, I wondered what people thought of the idea of also adding a link to the relevant race report at grandprix.com - either as an external link, or an additional source for the race results table. I was thinking grandprix.com rather than (say) ChicaneF1 or StatsF1 because it gives a narrative description of the race, which those other sites don't. Thoughts? DH85868993 ( talk) 07:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
This user has sprung up, claiming to be an account for the Mercedes-AMG F1 Team's media office. Two edits thus far, the first of which was removing a legitimate picture from Paddy Lowe under the claim that "Paddy Lowe requested it." A second new account then uploaded a picture to Commons and added it to the article. A quick Google shows a Ryan Rawlings employed in IT by Mercedes F1. The second edit by the media office account was to Mercedes-Benz in Formula One to change the article title to all capitals, as Mercedes typically stylizes their name in press releases, and adding an additional director to the infobox.
As this has the potential to be a conflict of interest on both accounts, how should we handle this? I find the edit to Paddy Lowe to be uncalled for, the removed picture had absolutely nothing wrong with it. Obviously BLP is tricky, but the picture in no way violates BLP. I cannot help but question the legitimacy of the claim that the new picture of Paddy Lowe was actually taken by the IT guy and not something published by Mercedes F1 itself, possibly not under the license which it was uploaded with.
Should conflict of interest templates be added to these two users' talk pages just as a precaution? The359 ( Talk) 04:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey everyone! Over the past days, I have been working on the Jochen Rindt article, trying to bring it up to GA standard. I have so far done everything except for the death in Monza and funeral part. I would appreciate if some of you could look over the article and smooth out anything that I might have screwed up. My biggest concern are the sources, really. Since I am not able to get access to any of the English literature on him (Henry, Prüller), I have been heavily relying on two documentaries that I got on DVD. They are without a doubt reliable sources, being made by respected German/Austrian TV stations, but obviously, they are not ideal for an English Wikipedia. If someone of who has access to a book that can back up the information, that would be absolutely wonderful! Also, I used Motor Sport Magazine's archive for most of the race reports, since it they appeared to me as the only real reliable sources for race reports. The ESPN ones are also good, but are called into question by the fact that they are marked with the date of the race but were definitely written later. Does anyone know other sources for that from reliable websites? Thank you all in advance! Zwerg Nase ( talk) 11:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
What's the situation with Notes section in Grand Prix articles? Some people claim it should be removed and some say the opposite. Is there some kind of consensus for this? – Sabbatino ( talk) 12:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
A while ago here we had a box here tracking the progress of getting the 2015 articles to Good Article status. The thread got archived and eventually forgotten. So I'll return the box to show the progress we have been making.
As you can see, the articles on the cars are mostly in poor shape. T v x1 18:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
As some of you may have noticed, recently I have been tagging (and fixing) numerous dead external links in F1-related articles. I have created a project page listing F1-related articles known to contain (tagged) dead external links. Editors are welcome to add articles to the list, or remove articles from the list once all dead external links have been removed from the article. The Checklinks tool can be used to identify, tag and fix dead external links. DH85868993 ( talk) 13:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
An IP changed Red Bull to Red Bull Racing in all result tables. I do not appreciate that. Thoughts? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 21:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
So where are we at with this issue? We currently have the cars listed as "Red Bull Racing-Renaults" in the qualifying and race results tables in the 2014 and 2015 race reports, but "Red Bull-Renaults" in all the season summary articles (including 2014 and 2015) and all pre-2014 race reports. My recommendation would be to revert the changes to the 2014 and 2015 race reports, so it says "Red Bull-Renault" everywhere. Thoughts? DH85868993 ( talk) 13:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
A user that has been editing a number of our articles over the last year has now been identified and blocked as a sock-puppet. T v x1 22:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I would like to turn your attention to this FP nomination. So far, there is only one F1 featured picture, it would be nice to have another one and this photo of the Force India VJM08 is kind of pretty, I think. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 15:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I would like to take some template stuff of the Williams Grand Prix Engineering into Frank Williams Racing Cars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.246.23 ( talk) 18:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It seems the "Marussia" name has been dropped and the team now goes by the name of "Manor Racing", does this mean a new article needs to be created as it is a new constructor? Also some user moved the Marussia F1 article to Manor Racing? Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 19:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Pyrope has amended the Wolf WR5 article in such a way that the two parameters give the full name of the car (not so in the Wolf WR1 article though?). So far, this is not handled consistently in the car articles. Which shall it be: full car name or just model number without the constructor name? Note: It needs to be with constructor name at some places anyway when the constructor name changes between seasons... Zwerg Nase ( talk) 09:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This issue comes up again now with the Renault RS16. There does not seem to be a clear consensus on which car should be named as predecessor and successor. We should have another debate about this. I feel that it is most logical to call the RS16 the successor of the Lotus E23, even if the constructors have different names. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 14:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted to notify you guys that my recent, and I believe quite NPOV, addition of a "criticism" section to Jorda's article has sparked a flush of very disruptive vandalism on her article. It was semiprotected today for two days, so I would appreciate if you could assist me in keeping an eye out for continuing behavior after the protection is lifted. Thanks! Zwerg Nase ( talk) 00:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
In line with our recently-established convention for the Wolf cars (i.e. one article for each design, not each individual chassis), should Wolf WR7, Wolf WR8 and Wolf WR9 (which as far as I'm aware, were separate examples of the same design) be merged back into a single article, like they used to be? DH85868993 ( talk) 11:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I feel that this guy should really get blocked. Keeps adding copyright vio photos to articles. Also, we should consider renaming Red Bull Racing-Tag-Heuer RB12 by convention. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 22:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Upon making various minor updates to the current season article, it came to my attention that the wiki article for Circuit Paul Ricard has the incorrect title, with the correct title redirecting to this. I do not know how to fix this, but it should be done. The move was made in the later half of 2015 without any discussion. I left a message on that talk page, but as it hasn't gotten attention for several years, I thought I'd post it here too. Cheers. Twirly Pen ( Speak up) 13:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
A while ago a discussion was started on an article for a power unit. In the meantime I have found more power unit and engine articles in existence. So far I have found Mercedes PU106-Type Hybrid, Zytek-Renault ZRS03, Honda Indy V8, Matra Sports V12 engine and Renault RE16 Turbo. The one on this year's Renault engine is nothing but a table of technical specifications. I feel that we should not be having such articles as they are beyond the purpose of Wikipedia. This is a general-purpose encyclopedia and not a detailed motorsport magazine. Any thoughts?
On a side note, while scanning these articles I have found that TheriusRooney is still littering F1 cars' infoboxes with unsourced additions. T v x1 23:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Some of you may be aware that I am in favor of this article being created. A driver's number is notable enough to be independently reported on (eg: "Hamilton to use 44 again in 2016"), and paramount to identification on the race course.
However, as I have indicated on the article's talk page, I implore those interested to consider using the table format in my sandbox instead of the one being currently presented. Thank you. Twirly Pen ( Speak up) 12:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It's just trivia, sorry. The fact that you can find sources concerning driver numbers does not automatically entitle it to an article; the existence of reliable sources is vital, but not the sole arbiter on article inclusion on Wikipedia. Other policies stating what Wikipedia is not, notably that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, trivia, or statistics, make it quite clear that this doesn't deserve an article here. QueenCake ( talk) 19:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick reminder that the AFD's minimum run of seven days will expire later today. So if anyone still wants to weigh in their opinion here, there's not much time left to do so. T v x1 00:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Over the past few days, an IP editor has converted three F1 team/constructor navboxes ({{ Zakspeed}}, {{ Wolf Racing}} and {{ Onyx Grand Prix}}) from our traditional "centred" format, e.g. this:
to a "grouped" format, e.g. this:
I don't have a strong preference for either format, but I thought I'd mention it here in case others do. DH85868993 ( talk) 04:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
In the hope of avoiding some edit warring in about a week's time, I'd like to establish a consensus regarding how we're going to list Red Bull Racing's cars in the results sections of the 2016 race report articles, i.e. are we going to list them as "Red Bull-Tag Heuer" or "Red Bull Racing-Tag Heuer"? As some of you may be aware (and as discussed in this earlier discussion), in the 2014 and 2015 race reports, the cars as listed as "Red Bull Racing-Renault"; in the 2005-2013 race reports, they are listed as "Red Bull-<engine>". Other factors to consider:
I have a slight preference for "Red Bull-Tag Heuer" but I'm mostly interested in establishing a consensus one way or the other. DH85868993 ( talk) 04:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
So I am expected to hold to an opinion that I expressed months ago, even if I no longer believe it?
This is precisely why we achieve nothing but chasing our own tails when trying to achieve a consensus—everyone sticks to their position and bashes it out over and over again until one side gets tired and relents. Heaven help you of you change your mind, because then it gets held up as an inconsistency on your part by the very people who persuaded you to change your mind even though persuading you of the merits of their argument is what they were trying to do all along. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 16:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The rules state (and I'm paraphrasing here) that the chassis name must be directly related to the constructor name. Smith Racing cannot call their car the Jones SR1; Smith SR1 would be the accepted name. Red Bull call their current car the Red Bull RB12, so from that we can establish that the constructor name is Red Bull. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 10:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
An editor has proposed reordering the table at List of Formula One Grand Prix winners. Interested editors may participate in the existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#List of F1 GP winners table. DH85868993 ( talk) 09:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The infamous IP editor is back yet again, having created two drafts for article: Draft:Lola T100 and Draft:Lola T102. Given the really limited appearances this cars actually made, as shown in those drafts, I really don't think they merit a dedicated article. T v x1 19:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I've had enough of this guy now: He's restored the Fittipaldi F8 page which I have left so as not spark warring accusations and, ultimately, it could be useful. The 87P draft has been blanked and he's created the same page out of a redirect made 2 days ago by another editor entirely. I have reverted that one. Usual messing with things also today incl. removal of maintenance tags. Left 2 messages on his today's talk-page which he's blanked. Unfortunately the last approach to admin met with little response. Eagleash ( talk) 18:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Update. The F8 page has been protected due to the persistent disruption. I don't know how the editor that did so came to be involved but I have asked if they could consider protecting the 87P and 761 pages also. Eagleash ( talk) 09:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I think you would have to go MfD as they are drafts. The nomination of the Lola LC87 there didn't go smoothly with at least one editor from outside the project stirring up things...not least by pointedly nominating other similar articles. (Which were much better sourced and written). However, if you wish to proceed I, and almost certainly, Bretonbanquet will support you. Eagleash ( talk) 22:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
As an aside, if they are deleted. IP will almost certainly immediately re-create them. (As happened with the LC87). If they somehow get accepted then we can merge, re-direct or delete as appropriate. Eagleash ( talk) 22:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Eagleash — have you tried raising the issue with the reviewer, or maybe referring the issue to something like ANI? It's quite clear that the IP editor has no intention of stopping the practice of creating new articles, and from looking at the user page of the editor who accepts the pages, they just patrol the encyclopaedia, approving things left, right and centre and clearly aren't familiar with the content or the project guidelines. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 10:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The IP has now created Draft:F1_Channel_4. T v x1 22:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of confusion about who holds the lap record of the Bahrain International Circuit on the configuration that has been used for all every edition expect the 2010 one. Formula One.com can be found to state on multiple places that Pedro de la Rosa holds the record with a time of 1:31.447 [12] [13] [14], but is contradicting itself by also stating that Michael Schumacher achieved a fastest lap of 1:30.252 during the 2004 race (over a second quicker). Does anyone have any information as to which is correct? Is Michael's lap ineligible for some reason? T v x1 20:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
While looking into the article, I noticed that the circuit map we are using in the article shows an incorrect circuit length. T v x1 14:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Eddie Jordan was recently moved to Eddie Jordan (commentator). I've started a discussion regarding the most appropriate title for the article. Interested editors are welcome to contribute at Talk:Eddie Jordan (commentator)#Article title. DH85868993 ( talk) 20:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I know that it has been long established that reports and statistics for drivers of X year should use the period correct national flag for X year. Specifically, the German Grand Prix lists Rudolf Caracciola under two different flags as Germany changed its flag over its career. However on the same article in the table for constructor statistics the flag of Auto Union and of Alfa Romeo are from a specific time period. Auto Union's victory in 1934 did not take place under the swastika flag of Germany, yet this is the flag used for Auto Union. Mercedes meanwhile is listed under the current German flag, despite victories in the race under three totally different flags. Alfa Romeo's two wins were under the flag which is used in the article, but certainly Alfa Romeo has participated many times in the German Grand Prix under the current Italian flag.
I think that constructors, when viewed over a large period of time, should be listed under the current national flag and not try to shoehorn past flags. This applies to other articles such as the Italian Grand Prix as well. The359 ( Talk) 19:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The following articles have been nominated for deletion:
You are free to weigh in your opinions in the discussions. You can reach them through clicking on the above links. T v x1 23:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick reminder that the Driver numbers AFD's minimum run of seven days will expire later today. So if anyone still wants to weigh in their opinion here, there's not much time left to do so. T v x1 00:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
FYI:
DH85868993 ( talk) 10:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC) {{od}
Another draft which has been WP:TE re-submitted and rejected several times, now at MfD here. Eagleash ( talk) 14:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
An editor has suggested that Toro Rosso STR1 and Red Bull RB1 be merged. Interested editors are welcome to express their opinions at the merger discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 10:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
An IP editor (the same one I think) has also proposed that Ferrari 246 F1-66 and Ferrari 246P should be merged with Ferrari 246 F1. The discussion is at Talk:Ferrari 246 F1-66 in case anyone cares to comment. DH85868993 ( talk) 09:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone! Over the past months, during many of the GA reviews concerning the 2015 race reports, questions have arisen if this or that website is a reliable source. Specifically about F1Fanatic, which I find invaluable as a source since it covers many things that cannot be found in other sources. I was wondering if we could start a list of sources that are considered reliable by this Project? The Motorsport project has something of the sort, but very short and not really suited just for F1. What do you think? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 15:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't anyone have any replies? Can I go ahead and create such a page for the project? What other sources do you find reliable? Which of mine do you disagree with? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 08:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Why would you need to go into any detail concerning individual qualifying sessions Zwerg Nase? It's the Grand Prix itself that is important, you only really need to cover the starting grid positions.
Regarding that list, The Telegraph is a broadsheet, albeit one that has greatly fallen in quality in recent years, so is a reliable source. The problem we have with online-only specialist sources is that they can fall in and out of our reliable source guidelines depending upon ownership and editorial direction (if existent). So Motorsport.com was relaunched last year and now has recognisable writers and an editor who are producing their own content; however older content may have been syndicated (or just stolen) so this may not be reliable. GrandPrix.com on the other hand used to be reliable, and certainly was at the time the WP:MOTOR list was created, but now simply runs GMM pieces, which are instantly unreliable, so should no longer be trusted as a source.
If you do want to create a new list, I suggest simply updating the WP:MOTOR one, rather than creating an F1 specific list. Most sources cover more than Formula One, and keeping it in one place is easier for everyone. QueenCake ( talk) 17:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
We have a user [15] making random changes to articles. I will revert some but the real world calls. Britmax ( talk) 13:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick heads-up: a user has started adding a "pit stops" column to race result tables. Weirdly, they're only adding it for the top three drivers. I gave been a regular since 2009, and to the best of my knowledge, we have never included this or anything like it before. I don't really see the need for it either, especially if it is only being limited to a small handful of drivers. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 07:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors, after writing an angry email to motorsport.com for their copyright violations, I have finally received some acknowledgment:
Hello Lukas,
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We understand that as an author you take pride in the content you create and we appreciate the fact that you shared your work on wikipedia, thus allowing us to use it on our site. We are being very proactive in remedying the instances of non-attribution you mentioned. Rest assured it will be taken care of.
Regards,
Katie Shenko, Esq.
Legal Counsel
I hope, something will change there soon now. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 21:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
A determined IP editor has continually added a list of drivers who have received enough points to be eligible for a super licence to the FIA Super Licence. I have continuously reverted these edits, as this sort of list that requires constant maintenance is generally deleted based upon WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In addition, this is only a theoretical list of drivers who could have a super licence based on one criteria, not a list of drivers who have one, or will apply for one, or even are actually eligible, as there are additional requirements. However, as they have continually readded this list to the point where this may count as an edit war, I would prefer to gain the projects opinion.
Is this material wanted on that article, or shall it be removed again? QueenCake ( talk) 18:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:2016 Formula One season#Season report.
Come on guys, you made a big deal about its relevance and you can't be bothered expanding on it. Meanwhile, individual race articles get thorough recaps. And then when I hide it on the season article since no-one has touched it in months pending a proper update, I get told to make constructive edits instead.
Please make up your minds, because right now, it's not even a half-arsed effort—it's quarter-arsed. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 10:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The tables again... I have a question: I notice that in the qualifying table, the driver column is wider than the longest name. However, in the race table, it is only as wide as the longest name. I could not find the reason for this. See the latest race report for example. Can someone explain why that is? They really should be consistent... Zwerg Nase ( talk) 19:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
style="padding-right:24px"
is missing in the cell containing the longest name. This coding is needed to prevent the content of some columns from overlapping.
T
v
x1
15:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)Dear MetalDylan, I am sure it was a lot of work to include those tyre columns into the race reports. However, I have removed them. In my opinion, they are just too much for a race report on Wikipedia. If readers are so interested in these details, which not necessarily have an impact on the event, they can find them elsewhere on the internet. We are a general encyclopedia, not a Formula One database. I invite other editors to chip in their opinion on this. Regards, Zwerg Nase ( talk) 14:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Tyre choices for Monaco weekend by team |
---|
|
|
References
Constructor | Driver | US | SS | S | M | H | I | W |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ferrari | Sebastian Vettel | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
What's the feeling towards adding a 'next race date' (wording definitely negotiable) to the race infobox? Could be useful to visitors. AtomCrusher ( talk) 15:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
It appears that DeFacto has had his long-term block lifted. For those of you who don't remember him, he was an extremely disruptive editor who was active a few years ago. His return is subject to additional sanctions, some of which apply to Formula One pages, and some of which do not. I cannot imagine what on earth possessed an administrator to restore his editing privileges, given the chaos he caused previously. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 12:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Since managing his first win, there has been a high level of disruptive editing to Max's article, making it very unstable. It needs as many watching eyes as possible. T v x1 02:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion in progress at Talk:Giuseppe Farina regarding whether Farina (who finished first in the 1950 British Grand Prix, aged 43 years, 195 days) or Reg Parnell (who finished third, aged 38 years, 315 days) should be credited as the first "youngest driver to score a podium finish and points in Formula One". The question is essentially whether Farina held the records for the 52 seconds between when he crossed the finish line and when Parnell crossed it, or whether neither driver held the records until the results were declared (which would make Parnell the first record-holder). You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the existing discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 09:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel that this encyclopedia is spiralling into becoming the stats site? Britmax ( talk) 08:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
An editor has posted at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard pointing out that Rossi's page shows one place of birth in the infobox and a different one early in the text. Eagleash ( talk) 20:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't Mario Andretti's infobox list only American as his nationality? As far as I know, he never raced under Italian flag. Or does his article have some "special" case regarding this matter? – Sabbatino ( talk) 18:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Red Bull Racing driver results on Grand Prix articles have been changed from Red Bull-TAG Heuer to Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer without discussion of the important change, did we have a discussion or is "Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer" how they are displayed on Wikipedia now? Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 17:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Far more important question: It appears that so far, the power units are wikilinked to TAG Heuer, which in my opinion makes absolutely no sense. I would vote to link to Renault in Formula One. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 14:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
DH85868993 has changed the way the team name is written out in the infobox of the 2015 Singapore Grand Prix article. I would opt for shortening the name in the race infobox, because if we do not do that, the name goes over two lines of texts, which I feel does not look very good. Any thoughts? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 11:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that in the driver infoboxes, we give the team names for all three seperate entities above all simply as Lotus. Wouldn't it be better to make clear which team is meant? Theoretically speaking, a driver such as Schumacher or Barrichello could have raced for all three of them (although that did not happen of course). Maybe we use Lotus just for the original Team Lotus and maybe for the 2010-11 incarnation that at least had the right to the name. But I would opt for Lotus F1 for those drivers who raced for the Enstone team between 2011/12 and 2015. What do you think? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 11:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
While seeing the Renault in Formula One article, I saw one edit summary by DH85868993 stating that the Tag Heuer-branded engines used by Red Bull are not considered Renault per this project convention. Well, maybe that's true (as consensus can override facts in ambiguous situations like this one), but I think there's an inconsistency that should be addressed. How the Tag Heuer engines are different from the Petronas ones? My concern surges from the fact the Ferrari Grand Prix results article actually has the Petronas-badged engines results included, while in the case of Tag Heuer they are listed in an article about an upper-market watchmaker. So, I think we only have two options to keep consitency, either moving the Petronas results to the Petronas (or the more specific Sauber Petronas Engineering) article or the Tag Heuer results to the Renault Grand Prix results. Regards. -- Urbanoc ( talk) 15:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Rowde has proposed ( here, here, here and here) that Merzario A1, Merzario A1B, Merzario A2 and Merzario A4 be merged to create Merzario A. Considering that Merzario A1, Merzario A1B, Merzario A2 and Merzario A4 are all redirects, I suspect what s/he is actually proposing is that a new article be created covering all 4 Merzario models. I suggest we conduct a single discussion here, rather than spread it out across 4 separate talk pages. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't really, but IP-hopping is not usually thought of in favourable terms. As you suggest, his IP sometimes changed more than once a day and this may be one reason why he took no notice of messages (as it changed before he saw them). However we do know he saw some at least because he blanked the pages. Messages included suggestions that he might like to create an account and join the F1 project and use his undoubted enthusiasm to good purpose in collaboration with other editors. However, he did not respond. Eagleash ( talk) 08:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:Life Racing Engines regarding the correct nomenclature for the Life chassis used in 1990 (i.e. "F190" or "L190"). Interested editors are welcome to express their opinions at the existing discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Stumbling upon our Luxembourg Grand Prix, I noticed it's lead has an inaccurate, original research explanation on how the Luxembourg Grand Prix name was given to the Nürburgring race in 1997 (and 1998). There a two major issues with the lead. Firstly, the 4 Luxembourg Grands Prix at Findel are completely ignored. Secondly, the explanation on the 1997 resurrection is unsourced and inaccurate. The 1997 European Grand Prix wasn't added to the calendar until halfway through the season as a replacement for the 1997 Portuguese Grand Prix. This means that the Luxembourg Grand Prix name was applied way before a European Grand Prix was even considered for that season. T v x1 23:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a slippery slope kind of thing: I do believe that significant records set at a Grand Prix should be included in the lead of that race's article. Quite clear is the case with things like Verstappen becoming the youngest ever race winner. More difficult is my current case: A new record speed was set during last weekend's qualifying in Baku at 378 kph. I think that that is notable enough to be included in the lead, but apparently Prisonermonkeys feels differently. What are your opinions? The last record top speed was included in the lead at 2005 Italian Grand Prix, though that is not really representative considering the state of that article... I do not want to set a precedent that we include every record in the lead, just very notable ones and I do believe a F1 car going the fastest any has ever been in an official session qualifies here. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 09:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
FYI, it looks as though formula1.com have finally restored the historical race results to their website. For example, the results for the 1950 British Grand Prix may be found at: http://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/1950/races/94/great-britain/race-result.html DH85868993 ( talk) 10:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Sources differ regarding whether Mike Beuttler was classified as 19th or "Retired" at the 1972 French Grand Prix. Editors are welcome to join the discussion at Talk:1972 French Grand Prix#Beuttler. DH85868993 ( talk) 01:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
We have a couple of editors putting "Finnish" in the nationality area of the infobox, and removing the note directing people to the talk page discussions. Please keep an eye on this. Britmax ( talk) 15:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
2015 Malaysian Grand Prix has been nominated for community reassessment regarding its GA status. The reassessment page can be found here. T v x1 18:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
A
recent edit of mine was
reverted with the summary: Project standard makes this past tense - the car is no longer in competition; any concerns, bring it up at WT:F1
.
As "is" seems to be more grammatically correct to me, I looked through the project docs for verification. I could not find any mention there of tense for this, so I looked at other article for precedents. I found that for the last five years worth of cars; all Ferrari car articles use "is", four Force Indias use "is", one McLaren uses "is", three Mercedes use "is", all Red Bulls use "is", three Saubers use "is", all Toro Rossos use "is" and two Williams use "is". That is, 28 out of 40 cars use "is". I guess the precedent is "is". Any views? -- de Facto ( talk). 06:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Did we come to a consensus here? I feel that every so often we have these discussions here and in the end, some people say their opinion but we do not really come to any conclusion... Zwerg Nase ( talk) 08:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I have recently come across MOS:TENSE in the manual of style and it advises: "By default, write all articles in the present tense, including for those covering products or works that have been discontinued." One example it gives is: "The PDP-10 is a discontinued mainframe computer family." Perhaps we should follow the MOS guidelines here and write something like: "The McLaren MP4-30 is a 2015-season Formula One racing car...". With MOS supporting the "present tense" case, I believe we need to have a strong rationale if we are to ignore that guidance - and I don't think we have seen one yet. -- de Facto ( talk). 06:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I seen mess after IP edits so Renault is missing now. Eurohunter ( talk) 20:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Monaco Grand Prix, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
FYI, 2018 Formula One season has been recreated, and subsequently nominated for deletion. Interested editors are invited to comment at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 23:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey everyone, just a quick reminder again: I nominated the 2015 season and race reports as a good topic. You can share your opinion here. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 08:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
1981 Formula One U.S Broadcasts, 1988 Formula One U.S Broadcasts and 1985 Formula One U.S Broadcasts were recently created and have been nominated for deletion. You can contribute to the deletion discussion here. T v x1 14:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Recently created article Belgian Grand Prix Runners-Up has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 13:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey everyone! We need an uninvolved editor to decide wether to close the community reassessment of 2015 Malaysian Grand Prix, which is a GA. The involved editors feel that it should now be kept as a GA. Maybe one of you guys can step in? You can do so here. BlueMoonset has offered to help with the procedure if need be. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 14:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed that some GPs use the demonym of that country (Italian, Belgian, Chinese, British, etc) and yet others like Singapore, United States or Monaco don't. Why the discrepancy?-- DGT15 ( talk) 18:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
An editor has suggested that sections of 1994 Formula One season be split out and merged as needed into the individual race articles. Interested editors are welcome to express their views at Talk:1994 Formula One season#Split proposal. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Sources disagree regarding the winner's time for the 1952 French Grand Prix. There is a discussion in progress at Talk:1952 French Grand Prix#Winner's time. DH85868993 ( talk) 12:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Heads up; these edits are remarkably similar to our long-term IP friend's efforts. A number of them are to pages IP has edited (etc.) previously and the new pages started bear the trademark grammar/punc/caps/tense errors. Eagleash ( talk) 20:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
And now apparently he's given up on Formula 1 and moved to the World Endurance Championship. Ford Chip Ganassi Racing is his latest creation from draftspace, along with Template:Ford Chip Ganassi Racing. Both of which apparently need to be completely separate from Chip Ganassi Racing and Template:Chip Ganassi Racing?
And, god no, Template:WikiProject WEC...? The359 ( Talk) 05:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I think they exist. 359 has proposed mergers, though disc. still needs to be started (as of when last I looked). Eagleash ( talk) 20:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, my personal preference would be full names, left-aligned. I'm not really fussed either way about the flags, although I would like all the articles to be consistent. From memory, the original rationale behind using surnames only was to reduce the width of the table. DH85868993 ( talk) 22:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Please be aware that a user, Hansen Sebastian has been making some changes to the introductions of race reports that are making the articles inaccurate. This is an example of what he is doing, taken from the 2016 Mexican Grand Prix page:
Admittedly, the wording here is clunky, but it is quite clearly referring to the date of the inaugural World Championship and so should read 1950. Hansen Sebastian has changed the date to 1963, which was the date of the first Mexican Grand Prix, but he hasn't changed the wording to reflect it.
It is not only the Mexican Grand Prix article that he has changed, but all future race articles— Japan, Austin, the aforementioned Mexico, Brazil and Abu Dhabi have all been affected. I have attempted to discuss this with Hansen Sebastian, but he has given no response, and within hours of receiving that message, he went back and reverted my edits to restore the incorrect version. Please be on the lookout for these edits. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 00:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hansen Sebastian has resumed his edits, insisting that the wording that he is putting forward is factually correct. It's quite clear that he is not reading the articles and so does not understand what the article is actually discussing or why his edits are wrong. The message he left on his talk page made it quite clear that he has no intention of listening to me. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 23:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Please be aware that in the past few days, an IP vandal—103.47.135.72—has popped up. They started hitting 2017 World Rally Championship, adding details of a made-up championship called "Cruis'n". I got the page semi-protected, but as soon as they were locked out, they spilled out and added similar content to a wide variety of motorsport articles. They've so far vandalised Circuit de Monaco, 2017 MotoGP season and Henning Solberg, and will likely hit more. I have already alerted the admins, but in the meantime, we need to be vigilant because they're targeting pages that have not been edited frequently, so their changes may go unnoticed. You can view their full list of "contributions" here Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 06:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
An editor has today, changed the reason for retirement on several articles (contributions
here) from 'fatal accident' to some other cause. E.g. at
1994 San Marino Grand Prix [[Death of Ayrton Senna|Fatal accident]]
, which was linked, was changed to plain 'suspension'. He obviously hasn't discussed this at this point in time, but has there been some consensus in respect of use of the term 'fatal accident' in the past?
Eagleash (
talk)
20:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Update: I had a reverted a couple of those when I had the chance, and I think Breton has got the rest. 20:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Rowde has (effectively) proposed that the 1976 to 1980 United States Grand Prix articles be renamed as "19YY United States Grand Prix East". I believe the articles should retain their current titles, on the basis that the official name of the events, as displayed on the programme covers ( [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]), were "<sponsor> Grand Prix of the United States" (i.e. without the "East"). Other opinions? DH85868993 ( talk) 02:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey everyone! I have nominated Jochen Rindt for Featured Article. Feel free to look into it and leave comments on the nomination page. Cheers! Zwerg Nase ( talk) 12:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
A tedious discussion regarding the wording of the content on 2017 Formula One season has evolved. Additional input would be greatly appreciated. You can find the discussion here. Thanks, T v x1 10:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I noticed some inconsistencies on the cars that are listed in result tables on wikipedia. On the Jackie Stewart page it is shown that he drove the BRM P115 only at the 1967 German and Canadian GP. While on the BRM P115 it is shown that he drove the P115 from the German GP through the rest of the season. So for the races at Italy, USA and Mexico it could be both cars. I have had a look around and here's what various sources say:
BRM P83 | ChicaneF1, Silhouet |
BRM P115 | StatsF1, Oldracingcars, ESPN, F1-Geschiedenis.be |
Personally I would say Stewart drove the P115 from the German GP onwards as I think the most reliable sources say so.
I also noticed an inconsistency with the cars Rolf Stommelen drove at the 1975 South African Grand Prix. On Stommelen's page it is shown he drove a Lola T371, but on the Hill GH1 page it is shown he drove the GH1. This is what various sources say:
Lola T371 | StatsF1, GrandPrix, Silhouet |
Hill GH1 | ChicaneF1, Oldracingcars, Racingsportscars, ESPN |
I would like any feedback. Jahn1234567890 ( talk) 17:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Pictures of Stewart driving a P83 and P115 at Monza can both be found. All the pictures of Stewart at Watkins Glen are in a P115. The car Stewart drove at Mexico cleerly had a different front end but for the rest it still looks like the P115. So the team probably tested a new front end. Italy is the only race I'm not sure about. Jahn1234567890 ( talk) 13:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
If any wikipedian is attending this weekend's Mexican Grand Prix it would be greatly appreciated if they'd make and upload some pictures. Especially from the cars driving through the former baseball stadium. Thanks, T v x1 18:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I recently looked at our article on the Formula One engines. I think the section on the current formula could do with a considerable re-write. There's no mention that the sport currently uses hybrid "power units" at the moment (in fact the term power unit doesn't appear at all in the article). This is problematic considering our season articles link the term power unit to that section. There's also no clear indication that these power units have six main components. Any thoughts on improving this section. T v x1 19:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The sources that are used on the page of the 1971 Questor Grand Prix have different overall results. For example silhouet and formula2.net list Graham Hill as 26th, but blogsport and counter-x.net lists him as 29th. The top 16 is the same with all the sources. From then on it differs quite a lot. Any idea which one is right? Jahn1234567890 ( talk) 18:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Some of you might be aware that since yesterday one user is running around and linking flags in drivers' infoboxes. I wouldn't care about such thing, but there's no consensus that would justify that user's actions. Please express your opinion here. – Sabbatino ( talk) 08:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Lately, a group of editors have decided that the "championship standings after the race" tables included in race reports should be their own first-level section of a page, as opposed to being included under the classification section. These have been included as part of the classification section for as long as I can remember—I started editing in 2009 and it was being done then—and I cannot find any recent discussions to change this. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 05:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
English Wikipedia currently credits fastest lap at the 1976 Japanese Grand Prix to Masahiro Hasemi. However both those articles have footnotes like this:
{{
citation}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
The last 4 cells of the third table in the second reference (which appear to be the official race results from the JAF, in Japanese) contain:
which I presume to be the fastest lap details (i.e. J.Laffite, Ligier JS5-Matra, 1:19.97, 196.2km/h), noting that the "J.<something>" matches the name of the 7th-placed finisher, which was Laffite. Subscription site FORIX credits Laffite with fastest lap. formula1.com used to credit Hasemi but now credits Laffite. Do we think there is sufficient evidence to change it to Laffite throughout? DH85868993 ( talk) 06:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Remember this and this? There is one user who decided to add these tables to Fernando Alonso's and Lewis Hamilton's articles, and ignores what we decided in these discussions. There's also hostility from that user when someone removes them. – Sabbatino ( talk) 19:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
FYI, it has been proposed that Wikipedia:F1 (aka WP:F1) which currently redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One, has been proposed for retargeting to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F1. Redundant. Interested editors may express their views at the RfD discussion. Regards. DH85868993 ( talk) 12:50, 1 December 2016 (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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
As some of you may be aware, the F1 Rejects site is now offline, which means all the links to it (of which there are a few) are now broken. One solution would be to replace the existing links with links to the archived versions of the pages at archive.org. I'll probably get around to doing it eventually, but I thought I'd mention it here in case anyone was looking for a little project to undertake over the holiday period. Regards. DH85868993 ( talk) 08:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I have proposed that the recently-created Iso-Marlboro FX3B be renamed to Politoys FX3 per our standard practice of naming articles after the car's original name. You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the rename discussion. Regards. DH85868993 ( talk) 08:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Something I probably should have sorted out before I started fixing all the broken formula1.com links (but better late than never, right?): What do we think are the appropriate values for the "work", "website" and "publisher" parameters in formula1.com references?
I think it makes sense to standardise. Thoughts? DH85868993 ( talk) 00:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Someone has moved the article Manor Motorsport to Manor Grand Prix Racing Ltd. Is this is an action we desire? T v x1 16:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I have proposed a change to the wording of the "Season in progress" footnotes which accompany motorsport results tables which the season is still in progress. Interested editors are invited to comment at the centralised discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 21:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
As I've been going through the F1 race reports unbreaking the formula1.com links, I've noticed we have some inconsistency regarding the section heading for the Championship standings sections. There's a mixture of "Standings after the race", "Championship standings after the race", "Drivers' Championship standings after the race" (pre-1958) and "Standings after Grand Prix". I think it makes sense to use a standard section heading for all the race reports (I'm happy to do the work - it should be pretty easy using AWB). My preference is for "Championship standings after the race", except for the 1950-60 Indianapolis 500 races, where I think it should be "World Drivers' Championship standings after the race", to clarify that it's the standings in the World Drivers' Championship, not the Champcar championship. Thoughts? DH85868993 ( talk) 09:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe the race results tables for all the WDC races (except maybe a few of the Indy 500s) now have a "Source" row. But some of the Qualifying tables don't. Can anyone suggest a good source for qualifying results before 2003? (formula1.com has qualifying results for 2003 onwards). Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 06:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The featured content on the WikiProject's front page is outdated and will require attention. Who agrees? Z105space (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Because I want to use an image for the Draft:Paul Rosche article, so how possible is it to use the images from the press releases on the right of this press release. Because I don't know if press release images are copyrighted, if so, what right am I covered under? Thanks in advance. Donnie Park ( talk) 21:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Some of the F1 race reports use the formula1.com live timing popups as a reference for the weather information. All these live timing popups are now dead links. Archived versions of the popups exist at www.archive.org, but they don't seem to work on my computer. Does this link work for other people? (If the links work for other people, I'll add the archive link to the references, otherwise I'll try to find a different reference). Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 23:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
An editor ( Holdenman05) added the FP results to 2015 Australian Grand Prix. We have not done so so far. Should we start doing it now? I would opt against it, I just don't see the relevance. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 11:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, recent regulation changes enacted in 2015 changed grid starting positions for drivers that fail to set a qualifying time in Q2 or Q3 from previous season's Driver standings to quicker FP3 time. So to say that FP has no bearing on the race is not necessarily true anymore. Twirly Pen ( Speak up) 08:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi all. As some of you may have noticed, I am currently adding sources (the archived formula1.com race results page) to the race results tables in all the (WDC) F1 race reports - so far I've done up to 1972. Since I'm already editing all the race reports, I wondered what people thought of the idea of also adding a link to the relevant race report at grandprix.com - either as an external link, or an additional source for the race results table. I was thinking grandprix.com rather than (say) ChicaneF1 or StatsF1 because it gives a narrative description of the race, which those other sites don't. Thoughts? DH85868993 ( talk) 07:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
This user has sprung up, claiming to be an account for the Mercedes-AMG F1 Team's media office. Two edits thus far, the first of which was removing a legitimate picture from Paddy Lowe under the claim that "Paddy Lowe requested it." A second new account then uploaded a picture to Commons and added it to the article. A quick Google shows a Ryan Rawlings employed in IT by Mercedes F1. The second edit by the media office account was to Mercedes-Benz in Formula One to change the article title to all capitals, as Mercedes typically stylizes their name in press releases, and adding an additional director to the infobox.
As this has the potential to be a conflict of interest on both accounts, how should we handle this? I find the edit to Paddy Lowe to be uncalled for, the removed picture had absolutely nothing wrong with it. Obviously BLP is tricky, but the picture in no way violates BLP. I cannot help but question the legitimacy of the claim that the new picture of Paddy Lowe was actually taken by the IT guy and not something published by Mercedes F1 itself, possibly not under the license which it was uploaded with.
Should conflict of interest templates be added to these two users' talk pages just as a precaution? The359 ( Talk) 04:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey everyone! Over the past days, I have been working on the Jochen Rindt article, trying to bring it up to GA standard. I have so far done everything except for the death in Monza and funeral part. I would appreciate if some of you could look over the article and smooth out anything that I might have screwed up. My biggest concern are the sources, really. Since I am not able to get access to any of the English literature on him (Henry, Prüller), I have been heavily relying on two documentaries that I got on DVD. They are without a doubt reliable sources, being made by respected German/Austrian TV stations, but obviously, they are not ideal for an English Wikipedia. If someone of who has access to a book that can back up the information, that would be absolutely wonderful! Also, I used Motor Sport Magazine's archive for most of the race reports, since it they appeared to me as the only real reliable sources for race reports. The ESPN ones are also good, but are called into question by the fact that they are marked with the date of the race but were definitely written later. Does anyone know other sources for that from reliable websites? Thank you all in advance! Zwerg Nase ( talk) 11:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
What's the situation with Notes section in Grand Prix articles? Some people claim it should be removed and some say the opposite. Is there some kind of consensus for this? – Sabbatino ( talk) 12:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
A while ago here we had a box here tracking the progress of getting the 2015 articles to Good Article status. The thread got archived and eventually forgotten. So I'll return the box to show the progress we have been making.
As you can see, the articles on the cars are mostly in poor shape. T v x1 18:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
As some of you may have noticed, recently I have been tagging (and fixing) numerous dead external links in F1-related articles. I have created a project page listing F1-related articles known to contain (tagged) dead external links. Editors are welcome to add articles to the list, or remove articles from the list once all dead external links have been removed from the article. The Checklinks tool can be used to identify, tag and fix dead external links. DH85868993 ( talk) 13:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
An IP changed Red Bull to Red Bull Racing in all result tables. I do not appreciate that. Thoughts? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 21:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
So where are we at with this issue? We currently have the cars listed as "Red Bull Racing-Renaults" in the qualifying and race results tables in the 2014 and 2015 race reports, but "Red Bull-Renaults" in all the season summary articles (including 2014 and 2015) and all pre-2014 race reports. My recommendation would be to revert the changes to the 2014 and 2015 race reports, so it says "Red Bull-Renault" everywhere. Thoughts? DH85868993 ( talk) 13:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
A user that has been editing a number of our articles over the last year has now been identified and blocked as a sock-puppet. T v x1 22:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I would like to turn your attention to this FP nomination. So far, there is only one F1 featured picture, it would be nice to have another one and this photo of the Force India VJM08 is kind of pretty, I think. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 15:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I would like to take some template stuff of the Williams Grand Prix Engineering into Frank Williams Racing Cars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.246.23 ( talk) 18:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It seems the "Marussia" name has been dropped and the team now goes by the name of "Manor Racing", does this mean a new article needs to be created as it is a new constructor? Also some user moved the Marussia F1 article to Manor Racing? Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 19:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Pyrope has amended the Wolf WR5 article in such a way that the two parameters give the full name of the car (not so in the Wolf WR1 article though?). So far, this is not handled consistently in the car articles. Which shall it be: full car name or just model number without the constructor name? Note: It needs to be with constructor name at some places anyway when the constructor name changes between seasons... Zwerg Nase ( talk) 09:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This issue comes up again now with the Renault RS16. There does not seem to be a clear consensus on which car should be named as predecessor and successor. We should have another debate about this. I feel that it is most logical to call the RS16 the successor of the Lotus E23, even if the constructors have different names. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 14:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted to notify you guys that my recent, and I believe quite NPOV, addition of a "criticism" section to Jorda's article has sparked a flush of very disruptive vandalism on her article. It was semiprotected today for two days, so I would appreciate if you could assist me in keeping an eye out for continuing behavior after the protection is lifted. Thanks! Zwerg Nase ( talk) 00:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
In line with our recently-established convention for the Wolf cars (i.e. one article for each design, not each individual chassis), should Wolf WR7, Wolf WR8 and Wolf WR9 (which as far as I'm aware, were separate examples of the same design) be merged back into a single article, like they used to be? DH85868993 ( talk) 11:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I feel that this guy should really get blocked. Keeps adding copyright vio photos to articles. Also, we should consider renaming Red Bull Racing-Tag-Heuer RB12 by convention. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 22:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Upon making various minor updates to the current season article, it came to my attention that the wiki article for Circuit Paul Ricard has the incorrect title, with the correct title redirecting to this. I do not know how to fix this, but it should be done. The move was made in the later half of 2015 without any discussion. I left a message on that talk page, but as it hasn't gotten attention for several years, I thought I'd post it here too. Cheers. Twirly Pen ( Speak up) 13:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
A while ago a discussion was started on an article for a power unit. In the meantime I have found more power unit and engine articles in existence. So far I have found Mercedes PU106-Type Hybrid, Zytek-Renault ZRS03, Honda Indy V8, Matra Sports V12 engine and Renault RE16 Turbo. The one on this year's Renault engine is nothing but a table of technical specifications. I feel that we should not be having such articles as they are beyond the purpose of Wikipedia. This is a general-purpose encyclopedia and not a detailed motorsport magazine. Any thoughts?
On a side note, while scanning these articles I have found that TheriusRooney is still littering F1 cars' infoboxes with unsourced additions. T v x1 23:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Some of you may be aware that I am in favor of this article being created. A driver's number is notable enough to be independently reported on (eg: "Hamilton to use 44 again in 2016"), and paramount to identification on the race course.
However, as I have indicated on the article's talk page, I implore those interested to consider using the table format in my sandbox instead of the one being currently presented. Thank you. Twirly Pen ( Speak up) 12:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It's just trivia, sorry. The fact that you can find sources concerning driver numbers does not automatically entitle it to an article; the existence of reliable sources is vital, but not the sole arbiter on article inclusion on Wikipedia. Other policies stating what Wikipedia is not, notably that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, trivia, or statistics, make it quite clear that this doesn't deserve an article here. QueenCake ( talk) 19:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick reminder that the AFD's minimum run of seven days will expire later today. So if anyone still wants to weigh in their opinion here, there's not much time left to do so. T v x1 00:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Over the past few days, an IP editor has converted three F1 team/constructor navboxes ({{ Zakspeed}}, {{ Wolf Racing}} and {{ Onyx Grand Prix}}) from our traditional "centred" format, e.g. this:
to a "grouped" format, e.g. this:
I don't have a strong preference for either format, but I thought I'd mention it here in case others do. DH85868993 ( talk) 04:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
In the hope of avoiding some edit warring in about a week's time, I'd like to establish a consensus regarding how we're going to list Red Bull Racing's cars in the results sections of the 2016 race report articles, i.e. are we going to list them as "Red Bull-Tag Heuer" or "Red Bull Racing-Tag Heuer"? As some of you may be aware (and as discussed in this earlier discussion), in the 2014 and 2015 race reports, the cars as listed as "Red Bull Racing-Renault"; in the 2005-2013 race reports, they are listed as "Red Bull-<engine>". Other factors to consider:
I have a slight preference for "Red Bull-Tag Heuer" but I'm mostly interested in establishing a consensus one way or the other. DH85868993 ( talk) 04:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
So I am expected to hold to an opinion that I expressed months ago, even if I no longer believe it?
This is precisely why we achieve nothing but chasing our own tails when trying to achieve a consensus—everyone sticks to their position and bashes it out over and over again until one side gets tired and relents. Heaven help you of you change your mind, because then it gets held up as an inconsistency on your part by the very people who persuaded you to change your mind even though persuading you of the merits of their argument is what they were trying to do all along. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 16:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The rules state (and I'm paraphrasing here) that the chassis name must be directly related to the constructor name. Smith Racing cannot call their car the Jones SR1; Smith SR1 would be the accepted name. Red Bull call their current car the Red Bull RB12, so from that we can establish that the constructor name is Red Bull. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 10:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
An editor has proposed reordering the table at List of Formula One Grand Prix winners. Interested editors may participate in the existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#List of F1 GP winners table. DH85868993 ( talk) 09:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The infamous IP editor is back yet again, having created two drafts for article: Draft:Lola T100 and Draft:Lola T102. Given the really limited appearances this cars actually made, as shown in those drafts, I really don't think they merit a dedicated article. T v x1 19:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I've had enough of this guy now: He's restored the Fittipaldi F8 page which I have left so as not spark warring accusations and, ultimately, it could be useful. The 87P draft has been blanked and he's created the same page out of a redirect made 2 days ago by another editor entirely. I have reverted that one. Usual messing with things also today incl. removal of maintenance tags. Left 2 messages on his today's talk-page which he's blanked. Unfortunately the last approach to admin met with little response. Eagleash ( talk) 18:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Update. The F8 page has been protected due to the persistent disruption. I don't know how the editor that did so came to be involved but I have asked if they could consider protecting the 87P and 761 pages also. Eagleash ( talk) 09:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I think you would have to go MfD as they are drafts. The nomination of the Lola LC87 there didn't go smoothly with at least one editor from outside the project stirring up things...not least by pointedly nominating other similar articles. (Which were much better sourced and written). However, if you wish to proceed I, and almost certainly, Bretonbanquet will support you. Eagleash ( talk) 22:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
As an aside, if they are deleted. IP will almost certainly immediately re-create them. (As happened with the LC87). If they somehow get accepted then we can merge, re-direct or delete as appropriate. Eagleash ( talk) 22:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Eagleash — have you tried raising the issue with the reviewer, or maybe referring the issue to something like ANI? It's quite clear that the IP editor has no intention of stopping the practice of creating new articles, and from looking at the user page of the editor who accepts the pages, they just patrol the encyclopaedia, approving things left, right and centre and clearly aren't familiar with the content or the project guidelines. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 10:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The IP has now created Draft:F1_Channel_4. T v x1 22:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of confusion about who holds the lap record of the Bahrain International Circuit on the configuration that has been used for all every edition expect the 2010 one. Formula One.com can be found to state on multiple places that Pedro de la Rosa holds the record with a time of 1:31.447 [12] [13] [14], but is contradicting itself by also stating that Michael Schumacher achieved a fastest lap of 1:30.252 during the 2004 race (over a second quicker). Does anyone have any information as to which is correct? Is Michael's lap ineligible for some reason? T v x1 20:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
While looking into the article, I noticed that the circuit map we are using in the article shows an incorrect circuit length. T v x1 14:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Eddie Jordan was recently moved to Eddie Jordan (commentator). I've started a discussion regarding the most appropriate title for the article. Interested editors are welcome to contribute at Talk:Eddie Jordan (commentator)#Article title. DH85868993 ( talk) 20:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I know that it has been long established that reports and statistics for drivers of X year should use the period correct national flag for X year. Specifically, the German Grand Prix lists Rudolf Caracciola under two different flags as Germany changed its flag over its career. However on the same article in the table for constructor statistics the flag of Auto Union and of Alfa Romeo are from a specific time period. Auto Union's victory in 1934 did not take place under the swastika flag of Germany, yet this is the flag used for Auto Union. Mercedes meanwhile is listed under the current German flag, despite victories in the race under three totally different flags. Alfa Romeo's two wins were under the flag which is used in the article, but certainly Alfa Romeo has participated many times in the German Grand Prix under the current Italian flag.
I think that constructors, when viewed over a large period of time, should be listed under the current national flag and not try to shoehorn past flags. This applies to other articles such as the Italian Grand Prix as well. The359 ( Talk) 19:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The following articles have been nominated for deletion:
You are free to weigh in your opinions in the discussions. You can reach them through clicking on the above links. T v x1 23:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick reminder that the Driver numbers AFD's minimum run of seven days will expire later today. So if anyone still wants to weigh in their opinion here, there's not much time left to do so. T v x1 00:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
FYI:
DH85868993 ( talk) 10:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC) {{od}
Another draft which has been WP:TE re-submitted and rejected several times, now at MfD here. Eagleash ( talk) 14:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
An editor has suggested that Toro Rosso STR1 and Red Bull RB1 be merged. Interested editors are welcome to express their opinions at the merger discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 10:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
An IP editor (the same one I think) has also proposed that Ferrari 246 F1-66 and Ferrari 246P should be merged with Ferrari 246 F1. The discussion is at Talk:Ferrari 246 F1-66 in case anyone cares to comment. DH85868993 ( talk) 09:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone! Over the past months, during many of the GA reviews concerning the 2015 race reports, questions have arisen if this or that website is a reliable source. Specifically about F1Fanatic, which I find invaluable as a source since it covers many things that cannot be found in other sources. I was wondering if we could start a list of sources that are considered reliable by this Project? The Motorsport project has something of the sort, but very short and not really suited just for F1. What do you think? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 15:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't anyone have any replies? Can I go ahead and create such a page for the project? What other sources do you find reliable? Which of mine do you disagree with? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 08:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Why would you need to go into any detail concerning individual qualifying sessions Zwerg Nase? It's the Grand Prix itself that is important, you only really need to cover the starting grid positions.
Regarding that list, The Telegraph is a broadsheet, albeit one that has greatly fallen in quality in recent years, so is a reliable source. The problem we have with online-only specialist sources is that they can fall in and out of our reliable source guidelines depending upon ownership and editorial direction (if existent). So Motorsport.com was relaunched last year and now has recognisable writers and an editor who are producing their own content; however older content may have been syndicated (or just stolen) so this may not be reliable. GrandPrix.com on the other hand used to be reliable, and certainly was at the time the WP:MOTOR list was created, but now simply runs GMM pieces, which are instantly unreliable, so should no longer be trusted as a source.
If you do want to create a new list, I suggest simply updating the WP:MOTOR one, rather than creating an F1 specific list. Most sources cover more than Formula One, and keeping it in one place is easier for everyone. QueenCake ( talk) 17:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
We have a user [15] making random changes to articles. I will revert some but the real world calls. Britmax ( talk) 13:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick heads-up: a user has started adding a "pit stops" column to race result tables. Weirdly, they're only adding it for the top three drivers. I gave been a regular since 2009, and to the best of my knowledge, we have never included this or anything like it before. I don't really see the need for it either, especially if it is only being limited to a small handful of drivers. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 07:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors, after writing an angry email to motorsport.com for their copyright violations, I have finally received some acknowledgment:
Hello Lukas,
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We understand that as an author you take pride in the content you create and we appreciate the fact that you shared your work on wikipedia, thus allowing us to use it on our site. We are being very proactive in remedying the instances of non-attribution you mentioned. Rest assured it will be taken care of.
Regards,
Katie Shenko, Esq.
Legal Counsel
I hope, something will change there soon now. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 21:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
A determined IP editor has continually added a list of drivers who have received enough points to be eligible for a super licence to the FIA Super Licence. I have continuously reverted these edits, as this sort of list that requires constant maintenance is generally deleted based upon WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In addition, this is only a theoretical list of drivers who could have a super licence based on one criteria, not a list of drivers who have one, or will apply for one, or even are actually eligible, as there are additional requirements. However, as they have continually readded this list to the point where this may count as an edit war, I would prefer to gain the projects opinion.
Is this material wanted on that article, or shall it be removed again? QueenCake ( talk) 18:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:2016 Formula One season#Season report.
Come on guys, you made a big deal about its relevance and you can't be bothered expanding on it. Meanwhile, individual race articles get thorough recaps. And then when I hide it on the season article since no-one has touched it in months pending a proper update, I get told to make constructive edits instead.
Please make up your minds, because right now, it's not even a half-arsed effort—it's quarter-arsed. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 10:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The tables again... I have a question: I notice that in the qualifying table, the driver column is wider than the longest name. However, in the race table, it is only as wide as the longest name. I could not find the reason for this. See the latest race report for example. Can someone explain why that is? They really should be consistent... Zwerg Nase ( talk) 19:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
style="padding-right:24px"
is missing in the cell containing the longest name. This coding is needed to prevent the content of some columns from overlapping.
T
v
x1
15:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)Dear MetalDylan, I am sure it was a lot of work to include those tyre columns into the race reports. However, I have removed them. In my opinion, they are just too much for a race report on Wikipedia. If readers are so interested in these details, which not necessarily have an impact on the event, they can find them elsewhere on the internet. We are a general encyclopedia, not a Formula One database. I invite other editors to chip in their opinion on this. Regards, Zwerg Nase ( talk) 14:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Tyre choices for Monaco weekend by team |
---|
|
|
References
Constructor | Driver | US | SS | S | M | H | I | W |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ferrari | Sebastian Vettel | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
What's the feeling towards adding a 'next race date' (wording definitely negotiable) to the race infobox? Could be useful to visitors. AtomCrusher ( talk) 15:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
It appears that DeFacto has had his long-term block lifted. For those of you who don't remember him, he was an extremely disruptive editor who was active a few years ago. His return is subject to additional sanctions, some of which apply to Formula One pages, and some of which do not. I cannot imagine what on earth possessed an administrator to restore his editing privileges, given the chaos he caused previously. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 12:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Since managing his first win, there has been a high level of disruptive editing to Max's article, making it very unstable. It needs as many watching eyes as possible. T v x1 02:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion in progress at Talk:Giuseppe Farina regarding whether Farina (who finished first in the 1950 British Grand Prix, aged 43 years, 195 days) or Reg Parnell (who finished third, aged 38 years, 315 days) should be credited as the first "youngest driver to score a podium finish and points in Formula One". The question is essentially whether Farina held the records for the 52 seconds between when he crossed the finish line and when Parnell crossed it, or whether neither driver held the records until the results were declared (which would make Parnell the first record-holder). You are welcome to express any views you may have on the matter at the existing discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 09:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel that this encyclopedia is spiralling into becoming the stats site? Britmax ( talk) 08:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
An editor has posted at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard pointing out that Rossi's page shows one place of birth in the infobox and a different one early in the text. Eagleash ( talk) 20:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't Mario Andretti's infobox list only American as his nationality? As far as I know, he never raced under Italian flag. Or does his article have some "special" case regarding this matter? – Sabbatino ( talk) 18:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Red Bull Racing driver results on Grand Prix articles have been changed from Red Bull-TAG Heuer to Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer without discussion of the important change, did we have a discussion or is "Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer" how they are displayed on Wikipedia now? Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 17:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Far more important question: It appears that so far, the power units are wikilinked to TAG Heuer, which in my opinion makes absolutely no sense. I would vote to link to Renault in Formula One. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 14:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
DH85868993 has changed the way the team name is written out in the infobox of the 2015 Singapore Grand Prix article. I would opt for shortening the name in the race infobox, because if we do not do that, the name goes over two lines of texts, which I feel does not look very good. Any thoughts? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 11:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that in the driver infoboxes, we give the team names for all three seperate entities above all simply as Lotus. Wouldn't it be better to make clear which team is meant? Theoretically speaking, a driver such as Schumacher or Barrichello could have raced for all three of them (although that did not happen of course). Maybe we use Lotus just for the original Team Lotus and maybe for the 2010-11 incarnation that at least had the right to the name. But I would opt for Lotus F1 for those drivers who raced for the Enstone team between 2011/12 and 2015. What do you think? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 11:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
While seeing the Renault in Formula One article, I saw one edit summary by DH85868993 stating that the Tag Heuer-branded engines used by Red Bull are not considered Renault per this project convention. Well, maybe that's true (as consensus can override facts in ambiguous situations like this one), but I think there's an inconsistency that should be addressed. How the Tag Heuer engines are different from the Petronas ones? My concern surges from the fact the Ferrari Grand Prix results article actually has the Petronas-badged engines results included, while in the case of Tag Heuer they are listed in an article about an upper-market watchmaker. So, I think we only have two options to keep consitency, either moving the Petronas results to the Petronas (or the more specific Sauber Petronas Engineering) article or the Tag Heuer results to the Renault Grand Prix results. Regards. -- Urbanoc ( talk) 15:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Rowde has proposed ( here, here, here and here) that Merzario A1, Merzario A1B, Merzario A2 and Merzario A4 be merged to create Merzario A. Considering that Merzario A1, Merzario A1B, Merzario A2 and Merzario A4 are all redirects, I suspect what s/he is actually proposing is that a new article be created covering all 4 Merzario models. I suggest we conduct a single discussion here, rather than spread it out across 4 separate talk pages. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't really, but IP-hopping is not usually thought of in favourable terms. As you suggest, his IP sometimes changed more than once a day and this may be one reason why he took no notice of messages (as it changed before he saw them). However we do know he saw some at least because he blanked the pages. Messages included suggestions that he might like to create an account and join the F1 project and use his undoubted enthusiasm to good purpose in collaboration with other editors. However, he did not respond. Eagleash ( talk) 08:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:Life Racing Engines regarding the correct nomenclature for the Life chassis used in 1990 (i.e. "F190" or "L190"). Interested editors are welcome to express their opinions at the existing discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Stumbling upon our Luxembourg Grand Prix, I noticed it's lead has an inaccurate, original research explanation on how the Luxembourg Grand Prix name was given to the Nürburgring race in 1997 (and 1998). There a two major issues with the lead. Firstly, the 4 Luxembourg Grands Prix at Findel are completely ignored. Secondly, the explanation on the 1997 resurrection is unsourced and inaccurate. The 1997 European Grand Prix wasn't added to the calendar until halfway through the season as a replacement for the 1997 Portuguese Grand Prix. This means that the Luxembourg Grand Prix name was applied way before a European Grand Prix was even considered for that season. T v x1 23:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a slippery slope kind of thing: I do believe that significant records set at a Grand Prix should be included in the lead of that race's article. Quite clear is the case with things like Verstappen becoming the youngest ever race winner. More difficult is my current case: A new record speed was set during last weekend's qualifying in Baku at 378 kph. I think that that is notable enough to be included in the lead, but apparently Prisonermonkeys feels differently. What are your opinions? The last record top speed was included in the lead at 2005 Italian Grand Prix, though that is not really representative considering the state of that article... I do not want to set a precedent that we include every record in the lead, just very notable ones and I do believe a F1 car going the fastest any has ever been in an official session qualifies here. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 09:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
FYI, it looks as though formula1.com have finally restored the historical race results to their website. For example, the results for the 1950 British Grand Prix may be found at: http://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/1950/races/94/great-britain/race-result.html DH85868993 ( talk) 10:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Sources differ regarding whether Mike Beuttler was classified as 19th or "Retired" at the 1972 French Grand Prix. Editors are welcome to join the discussion at Talk:1972 French Grand Prix#Beuttler. DH85868993 ( talk) 01:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
We have a couple of editors putting "Finnish" in the nationality area of the infobox, and removing the note directing people to the talk page discussions. Please keep an eye on this. Britmax ( talk) 15:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
2015 Malaysian Grand Prix has been nominated for community reassessment regarding its GA status. The reassessment page can be found here. T v x1 18:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
A
recent edit of mine was
reverted with the summary: Project standard makes this past tense - the car is no longer in competition; any concerns, bring it up at WT:F1
.
As "is" seems to be more grammatically correct to me, I looked through the project docs for verification. I could not find any mention there of tense for this, so I looked at other article for precedents. I found that for the last five years worth of cars; all Ferrari car articles use "is", four Force Indias use "is", one McLaren uses "is", three Mercedes use "is", all Red Bulls use "is", three Saubers use "is", all Toro Rossos use "is" and two Williams use "is". That is, 28 out of 40 cars use "is". I guess the precedent is "is". Any views? -- de Facto ( talk). 06:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Did we come to a consensus here? I feel that every so often we have these discussions here and in the end, some people say their opinion but we do not really come to any conclusion... Zwerg Nase ( talk) 08:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I have recently come across MOS:TENSE in the manual of style and it advises: "By default, write all articles in the present tense, including for those covering products or works that have been discontinued." One example it gives is: "The PDP-10 is a discontinued mainframe computer family." Perhaps we should follow the MOS guidelines here and write something like: "The McLaren MP4-30 is a 2015-season Formula One racing car...". With MOS supporting the "present tense" case, I believe we need to have a strong rationale if we are to ignore that guidance - and I don't think we have seen one yet. -- de Facto ( talk). 06:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I seen mess after IP edits so Renault is missing now. Eurohunter ( talk) 20:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Monaco Grand Prix, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
FYI, 2018 Formula One season has been recreated, and subsequently nominated for deletion. Interested editors are invited to comment at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 23:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey everyone, just a quick reminder again: I nominated the 2015 season and race reports as a good topic. You can share your opinion here. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 08:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
1981 Formula One U.S Broadcasts, 1988 Formula One U.S Broadcasts and 1985 Formula One U.S Broadcasts were recently created and have been nominated for deletion. You can contribute to the deletion discussion here. T v x1 14:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Recently created article Belgian Grand Prix Runners-Up has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion. DH85868993 ( talk) 13:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey everyone! We need an uninvolved editor to decide wether to close the community reassessment of 2015 Malaysian Grand Prix, which is a GA. The involved editors feel that it should now be kept as a GA. Maybe one of you guys can step in? You can do so here. BlueMoonset has offered to help with the procedure if need be. Zwerg Nase ( talk) 14:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed that some GPs use the demonym of that country (Italian, Belgian, Chinese, British, etc) and yet others like Singapore, United States or Monaco don't. Why the discrepancy?-- DGT15 ( talk) 18:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
An editor has suggested that sections of 1994 Formula One season be split out and merged as needed into the individual race articles. Interested editors are welcome to express their views at Talk:1994 Formula One season#Split proposal. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Sources disagree regarding the winner's time for the 1952 French Grand Prix. There is a discussion in progress at Talk:1952 French Grand Prix#Winner's time. DH85868993 ( talk) 12:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Heads up; these edits are remarkably similar to our long-term IP friend's efforts. A number of them are to pages IP has edited (etc.) previously and the new pages started bear the trademark grammar/punc/caps/tense errors. Eagleash ( talk) 20:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
And now apparently he's given up on Formula 1 and moved to the World Endurance Championship. Ford Chip Ganassi Racing is his latest creation from draftspace, along with Template:Ford Chip Ganassi Racing. Both of which apparently need to be completely separate from Chip Ganassi Racing and Template:Chip Ganassi Racing?
And, god no, Template:WikiProject WEC...? The359 ( Talk) 05:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I think they exist. 359 has proposed mergers, though disc. still needs to be started (as of when last I looked). Eagleash ( talk) 20:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, my personal preference would be full names, left-aligned. I'm not really fussed either way about the flags, although I would like all the articles to be consistent. From memory, the original rationale behind using surnames only was to reduce the width of the table. DH85868993 ( talk) 22:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Please be aware that a user, Hansen Sebastian has been making some changes to the introductions of race reports that are making the articles inaccurate. This is an example of what he is doing, taken from the 2016 Mexican Grand Prix page:
Admittedly, the wording here is clunky, but it is quite clearly referring to the date of the inaugural World Championship and so should read 1950. Hansen Sebastian has changed the date to 1963, which was the date of the first Mexican Grand Prix, but he hasn't changed the wording to reflect it.
It is not only the Mexican Grand Prix article that he has changed, but all future race articles— Japan, Austin, the aforementioned Mexico, Brazil and Abu Dhabi have all been affected. I have attempted to discuss this with Hansen Sebastian, but he has given no response, and within hours of receiving that message, he went back and reverted my edits to restore the incorrect version. Please be on the lookout for these edits. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 00:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hansen Sebastian has resumed his edits, insisting that the wording that he is putting forward is factually correct. It's quite clear that he is not reading the articles and so does not understand what the article is actually discussing or why his edits are wrong. The message he left on his talk page made it quite clear that he has no intention of listening to me. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 23:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Please be aware that in the past few days, an IP vandal—103.47.135.72—has popped up. They started hitting 2017 World Rally Championship, adding details of a made-up championship called "Cruis'n". I got the page semi-protected, but as soon as they were locked out, they spilled out and added similar content to a wide variety of motorsport articles. They've so far vandalised Circuit de Monaco, 2017 MotoGP season and Henning Solberg, and will likely hit more. I have already alerted the admins, but in the meantime, we need to be vigilant because they're targeting pages that have not been edited frequently, so their changes may go unnoticed. You can view their full list of "contributions" here Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 06:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
An editor has today, changed the reason for retirement on several articles (contributions
here) from 'fatal accident' to some other cause. E.g. at
1994 San Marino Grand Prix [[Death of Ayrton Senna|Fatal accident]]
, which was linked, was changed to plain 'suspension'. He obviously hasn't discussed this at this point in time, but has there been some consensus in respect of use of the term 'fatal accident' in the past?
Eagleash (
talk)
20:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Update: I had a reverted a couple of those when I had the chance, and I think Breton has got the rest. 20:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Rowde has (effectively) proposed that the 1976 to 1980 United States Grand Prix articles be renamed as "19YY United States Grand Prix East". I believe the articles should retain their current titles, on the basis that the official name of the events, as displayed on the programme covers ( [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]), were "<sponsor> Grand Prix of the United States" (i.e. without the "East"). Other opinions? DH85868993 ( talk) 02:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey everyone! I have nominated Jochen Rindt for Featured Article. Feel free to look into it and leave comments on the nomination page. Cheers! Zwerg Nase ( talk) 12:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
A tedious discussion regarding the wording of the content on 2017 Formula One season has evolved. Additional input would be greatly appreciated. You can find the discussion here. Thanks, T v x1 10:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I noticed some inconsistencies on the cars that are listed in result tables on wikipedia. On the Jackie Stewart page it is shown that he drove the BRM P115 only at the 1967 German and Canadian GP. While on the BRM P115 it is shown that he drove the P115 from the German GP through the rest of the season. So for the races at Italy, USA and Mexico it could be both cars. I have had a look around and here's what various sources say:
BRM P83 | ChicaneF1, Silhouet |
BRM P115 | StatsF1, Oldracingcars, ESPN, F1-Geschiedenis.be |
Personally I would say Stewart drove the P115 from the German GP onwards as I think the most reliable sources say so.
I also noticed an inconsistency with the cars Rolf Stommelen drove at the 1975 South African Grand Prix. On Stommelen's page it is shown he drove a Lola T371, but on the Hill GH1 page it is shown he drove the GH1. This is what various sources say:
Lola T371 | StatsF1, GrandPrix, Silhouet |
Hill GH1 | ChicaneF1, Oldracingcars, Racingsportscars, ESPN |
I would like any feedback. Jahn1234567890 ( talk) 17:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Pictures of Stewart driving a P83 and P115 at Monza can both be found. All the pictures of Stewart at Watkins Glen are in a P115. The car Stewart drove at Mexico cleerly had a different front end but for the rest it still looks like the P115. So the team probably tested a new front end. Italy is the only race I'm not sure about. Jahn1234567890 ( talk) 13:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
If any wikipedian is attending this weekend's Mexican Grand Prix it would be greatly appreciated if they'd make and upload some pictures. Especially from the cars driving through the former baseball stadium. Thanks, T v x1 18:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I recently looked at our article on the Formula One engines. I think the section on the current formula could do with a considerable re-write. There's no mention that the sport currently uses hybrid "power units" at the moment (in fact the term power unit doesn't appear at all in the article). This is problematic considering our season articles link the term power unit to that section. There's also no clear indication that these power units have six main components. Any thoughts on improving this section. T v x1 19:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The sources that are used on the page of the 1971 Questor Grand Prix have different overall results. For example silhouet and formula2.net list Graham Hill as 26th, but blogsport and counter-x.net lists him as 29th. The top 16 is the same with all the sources. From then on it differs quite a lot. Any idea which one is right? Jahn1234567890 ( talk) 18:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Some of you might be aware that since yesterday one user is running around and linking flags in drivers' infoboxes. I wouldn't care about such thing, but there's no consensus that would justify that user's actions. Please express your opinion here. – Sabbatino ( talk) 08:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Lately, a group of editors have decided that the "championship standings after the race" tables included in race reports should be their own first-level section of a page, as opposed to being included under the classification section. These have been included as part of the classification section for as long as I can remember—I started editing in 2009 and it was being done then—and I cannot find any recent discussions to change this. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 05:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
English Wikipedia currently credits fastest lap at the 1976 Japanese Grand Prix to Masahiro Hasemi. However both those articles have footnotes like this:
{{
citation}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
The last 4 cells of the third table in the second reference (which appear to be the official race results from the JAF, in Japanese) contain:
which I presume to be the fastest lap details (i.e. J.Laffite, Ligier JS5-Matra, 1:19.97, 196.2km/h), noting that the "J.<something>" matches the name of the 7th-placed finisher, which was Laffite. Subscription site FORIX credits Laffite with fastest lap. formula1.com used to credit Hasemi but now credits Laffite. Do we think there is sufficient evidence to change it to Laffite throughout? DH85868993 ( talk) 06:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Remember this and this? There is one user who decided to add these tables to Fernando Alonso's and Lewis Hamilton's articles, and ignores what we decided in these discussions. There's also hostility from that user when someone removes them. – Sabbatino ( talk) 19:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
FYI, it has been proposed that Wikipedia:F1 (aka WP:F1) which currently redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One, has been proposed for retargeting to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F1. Redundant. Interested editors may express their views at the RfD discussion. Regards. DH85868993 ( talk) 12:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)