Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 7

message: The sample populated templates indicate that references to individual races (e.g. "Debut" in template:F1 team) should take the form of:1991 Belgian Grand PrixWhat's the rationale behind using this format rather than just:1991 Belgian Grand PrixDH85868993 12:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to individual races when populating templates 

message: Hi all. New template knocked together for car articles. Very much along the lines of the pre-existing cut-and-paste jobs that have been used for some articles, but tidied a touch. Pro-forma on the project page and the template talk page. Please keep an eye out for unboxed articles and articles not using the correct format (e.g. most Lotus cars seem to have gained the "Team" template). Comments would be great... Pyrope 19:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good. I've got a few that I need to change. Adrian M. H. 19:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've also got template:Racing car though. Maybe I should be better at publicising these?! :D On this occasion I would argue for using the racing car version, because it should also be relevant to sports cars etc. The info should really be the same for any racing chassis. 4u1e 08:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, didn't see the previous template and it never appeared in searches. I'll combine elements of the two under the template:Racing car (with some comments from the talk page) and then adjust the project page. Hold off using either for now... Pyrope 09:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Not a dumb question, just hard to answer. I've been using the number of races in which a car of that type was entered (your former example), not the total number of chassis which entered races (your second example). Either is quite logical, anyone got a view on what's 'normal' in high quality sources? 4u1e 14:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Grand Prix Racing - the whole story" (www.gpracing.net192.com) lists both - see sample for McLaren. If we're only going to have one number though, I think number of distinct races (i.e. Races=16) would be better (a) for consistency with Driver and Constructor/Team infoboxes and (b) intuitively. Consider the McLaren MP4/4: "Races=16, Wins=15, Poles=15" gives a more accurate impression of what happened in 1988 than "Races=32, Wins=15, Poles=15". DH85868993 15:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would only use the double figure when it is distinctly advantageous and clear to understand. Such as when referring to starts, as opposed to races, in the context of analysing results. ie: "from 34 starts, it had 4 engine failures, 3 suspension failures and 2 collisions." The single figure makes more sense in infoboxes and avoids confusion when dealing with single car entries in the days before two-car teams were made mandatory.  -  Adrian M. H. 17:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:F1 car]] 

message: Throughout the F1-related articles, there are hundreds of instances where "Lotus" is linked to Lotus Cars and also hundreds of instances where "Lotus" is linked to Team Lotus, without any pattern that I could discern. Should all instances link to one or the other? Or should works entries link to Team Lotus and private entries link to Lotus Cars? I guess it depends on the exact nature of the relationship between Lotus Cars and Team Lotus, of which, I must confess, I am ignorant. (Did Lotus Cars build all Lotus cars, including the F1 racing cars, and Team Lotus just raced them?) DH85868993 10:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From my limited knowledge of the history of the team, Chapman was prone to moving money/work around between his various companies as he saw fit to keep everything running smoothly, but that's by the by. My initial reaction was 'of course it's Team Lotus', but your comment about who built the customer cars gave me pause. After a little (30secs!) more thought, I vote we apply the same logic as for Brabham, where although the team that raced the cars and the company that built the cars were at one time two separate entities, the 'principle of least astonishment' suggested that we just call the article Brabham. In other words, link all to Team Lotus, which is what most readers will expect. I suspect that the links to Lotus Cars date from before the Team Lotus article was split from its parent. I defer to anyone who has a more detailed knowledge of Lotus' history! 4u1e 14:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... now that is a question. Hmmm. I have instances in literature where Lotus cars are credited to Team Lotus, Lotus Cars, Lotus Engineering and Lotus Racing. Some may not be too reputable, but as you say, Big Colin had a rather free-form attitude to his assets so I would back the Team Lotus default. Especially as Lotus Cars was actually the daughter of the racing outfit, and not the other way round. Pyrope 01:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lotus links 

message: I've created a new page specifying the standard table formats for use throughout the Formula One articles. Further discussion about standard table formats should take place on the new page's discussion page. DH85868993 13:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any way to make tables a little narrower? Adrian M. H. 14:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a go with the Sauber results table Adrian...But the thing is that I'm using one of my colleges' PCs at the moment, with NO FireFox OR address bar :-(, and the resolution is bigger then my PC at home. So can you check if my attempts on the Sauber article are okay. Thanks.--Skully Collins Edits 14:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Speaking of Sauber, may I direct your attention to the logo in the infobox? Because that logo is for their Petronas. Although Petronas are the majority (in terms of years in Formula One) engine supplier for Sauber. I think it should be removed, or at least moved to the Petronas section and replace with just the Sauber logo. I think I may have found the logo, but I'm not sure. --Skully Collins Edits 14:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Skully. I have just viewed the table on my backup 1024x768 screen (essential kit for any web designer!) and it cuts off the WCC column and half of the points column. Fine on 1280, of course. That logo is, as far as I know, the correct one. Whenever I have seen a Sauber, I'm sure that it has that logo on the nosecone, but I'll go fishing for some pictures to prove or disprove that theory. I took the main Suaber page as my lead when I made a couple of Sauber chassis articles. The black version that you found elsewhere seems only to differ in colour. Adrian M. H. 14:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just found some pics on Forix that show the Petronas logo instead, so it's unclear at the moment. I have now found the unofficial fan site http://www.sportnetwork.net/main/s200.htm, which uses the chrome logo, and I recall seeing it used in earlier Autosport season reviews as well. Adrian M. H. 15:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard table formats 

message: Noting Pete Fenelon's recent edit to Fry (racing team) and knowing DH's enthusiasm for accuracy (!) - what were the regulations under which F2 cars were allowed to enter some World Championship Grands Prix, esp. in Germany? I've always assumed that in those simpler times it was just a case of the engine being under the Formula One maximum size constraint and that the cars therefore met the F1 regs (similar to 1958 Coopers with undersize engines, or the 2 litre Lotuses etc competing in 1966). Like Fry, some of our other material is probably based on the assumption that if a car is in a world championship race, it's an F1 car. It's just occured to me that it's more likely that those races were explicitly open to cars meeting either F1 or F2 regs. Can anyone confirm? Cheers 4u1e 07:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, you are correct, i.e. it was just a case of the engine being under the Formula One maximum size constraint and that the cars therefore met the F1 regs (although I have some recollection of Beltoise's Matra F2 car which competed in the 1968 South African Grand Prix having to be "ballasted up to the minimum Formula One weight limit"). As to whether constructors such as Fry (racing team) should be included in :Category:Formula One constructors and List of Formula One constructors, I'm happy for them to be included, on the basis that (a) that category and list actually include all constructors who have participated in World Championship events, rather than Formula One races per se, and (b) if we take them out, someone will eventually just add them back in... On the proviso that the article itself states the correct facts, as Fry (racing team) now does. Also note that there were several races (the 1957, 1958, 1966, 1967 and 1969 German Grands Prix and the 1958 Moroccan Grand Prix) where a F2 race was held concurrently with the F1 race; it's always a bit "grey" as to whether participations in the F2 class of these races should be counted in a driver or constructor's World Championship statistics. DH85868993 09:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying that. I don't have a problem with the former being listed as F1 constructors, if the car was scrutineered as an F1, then it met the criteria, even if that's not what it was built as. The second 'grey' area was the ones I was really thinking of though - I guess a constructor who competed only in a specific F2 class shouldn't really be counted in the F1 categories, or at least the wording of their articles should be caveated. Cheers. 4u1e 16:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only constructor who competed in a F2 race held concurrently with a F1 WDC race but never competed in a F1 WDC race was Protos, who are correctly identified in their Wikipedia article as a Formula Two constructor, and aren't included in :Category:Formula One constructors (although they are listed in the List of Formula One constructors). Having said that, within Wikipedia, we do seem to be handling the above-mentioned races in a very inconsistent fashion. Most of the time, participations in the F2 classes of these races aren't counted in driver and constructor statistics, except for the 1958 Moroccan Grand Prix, which is counted most of the time. See the full gory detail here. DH85868993 13:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Can i ask that we try and keep reviews of seasons in the season pages (e.g. 2006 Formula One season) and races in the race pages (e.g. 2006 European Grand Prix)? There seems to be far too much of people putting up multiple verisons of season reviews in places where they don't really belong. 
For example, Ferrari 248 F1 was effectively a slightly biased summary of everything that happened in the 2006 races, it barely mentioned anything about the car (i've started to rewrite that one). Scuderia Ferrari is another example - This is a team that's competed in F1 since the start, are we going to expand every season review to the same length as Scuderia_Ferrari#2006_Season? And then rewrite it all for every team, driver, car designer....
I know it's fresh in our minds and easy to write about, but we don't really need to include a different summary of the season in every F1 article! Could we not limit this sensibly, please? e.g. team articles should include a few (say, 3 or 4) sentences about each season, drawing attention to any particularly notable events for that team. Spute 19:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now re-written Ferrari 248 F1 - to see my point look at how it was on say 28th December 2006.Spute 20:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear! Although you'll probably find that most people who read this page know what you mean anyway. In my view, the car articles should focus on the design of the car, with only a brief summary of its race history, as this will be covered in multiple other places. 4u1e 11:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a pity.... The 248 article was on my To-do list! (Never mind; it's a long list!) Anyway, I agree entirely with your comments. Car articles should deal with their features, concept, development and other notable factors (debut car, or most successful, etc.) with just a little summary of its results, which helps to indicate its achievements/reliability or otherwise. Adrian M. H. 18:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race/season reviews - lots of duplication -  a request to keep it in the right places 

message: I was in the process of adding the various general purpose motor racing infoboxes to Category:Motor racing infoboxes, when I noticed that there isn't a specific category for Formula One templates. They are in Category:Formula One instead, which is obviously more about articles. Should we create a Category:Formula One infoboxes, as a sub-category of Motor racing infoboxes? Adrian M. H. 23:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me. One question though, do we consider templates such as template:McLaren F1 and template:Lotus to be "infobox" templates? If not, then consider whether we want to include these templates in the new category, which then might affect its name (i.e. we might need to call it "Formula One templates" rather than "Formula One infoboxes"). DH85868993 06:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they not infoboxes, then? I assumed that any templated box that gives information, whether filled in by an editor or just dropped into place, is an infobox. I would include them anyway, along with things like Template:F1 cars 2001 as well. Adrian M. H. 15:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's fine. I just wasn't sure of the exact definition of "infobox". It seems sensible to keep all the F1 templates together in the one place anyway. DH85868993 01:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I've categorised those that I can find, though I'm sure there are others that I've missed. Adrian M. H. 15:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look at the existing hierarchy under :Category:Sports templates and did some rearranging as a result. There is now :Category:Formula One templates with subcategories :Category:Formula One infoboxes and :Category:Formula One navigational boxes. I'm fairly confident that all the F1 templates are appropriately categorised now. DH85868993 16:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. What's the deal with template:F1 driver results legend and template:F1 driver results legend 2. Should all articles use the same template, or should they both be used, under different circumstances? DH85868993 16:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job. I may have read something about the reason for those two templates in an archived discussion. Not sure where or when, so you might have to search through. I think they had a valid reason for keeping both. Adrian M. H. 16:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorisation of infobox templates 

message: Most of the (non-Indy-only) driver articles contain a table listing the driver's complete results in World Championship races. In most cases, the table is entitled "Complete Formula One results". For those drivers where that title is inaccurate (i.e. they competed in non-championship F1 races and/or non-F1 championship races), I'm relabelling the table as "Complete World Championship results". I'm wondering:
* are people happy with that title, or would some other title be preferable, e.g. "Complete FIA World Championship results" or "Complete World Drivers' Championship results". Note that I'm reluctant to use the term "Complete Formula One World Championship results" because from 1950-1960 the championship included some non-F1 events.
* would it be simpler/more consistent to change the title of the table for all drivers, i.e. including those for whom "complete F1 results" and "complete WC results" are identical?
DH85868993 14:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some drivers have boxes for non-Champ race wins in those sections (International Trophy and Race of Champions in the main) as well as lower formulae titles, so these might have to either be relocated, or the section name adjusted. Possibly there could be some milage in having a general title for the section with subsection titles for WC or other results? Pyrope 15:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete Formula One results 

message: Something weird's happened to this template. See Renault F1 for example. Any idea what's wrong? Spute 22:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha...I caused an edit conflict asking the same question.  Adrian M. H. edited the template today, so I'll revert the change to see if it makes any difference...--Diniz 22:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it seems to have worked.  This was the edit - it looks harmless enough.--Diniz 22:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what did I do wrong in my attempt to categorise it? (See subject about infobox categories) Whatever it was, I can assure you all that it was unintentional. My apologies. Adrian M. H. 22:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you're not allowed to have multiple <noinclude> clauses in the same article/template? Perhaps try including the category inside the existing <noinclude> clause? DH85868993 23:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's okay, because I have used multiple noinclude tags before with no ill effects. Not to worry. Adrian M. H. 14:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:F1]] (x2) 

message: There is currently a bit of edit warring going on over external links in Formula One. It has also been an issue in the past. Can I suggest we come up with an agreed list here and once that is complete we can add those and a comment warning against adding more without discussing it?
:I added such a comment a couple of days ago. It's been studiously ignored. Maybe I didn't make it obvious enough. DH85868993 08:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: D'oh! I just checked and I had put the comment above the "External Links" section header - no wonder people didn't see it! I've now relocated it into the External Links section (at the end of each subgrouping) - lets see if that has any effect. DH85868993 08:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, looks good. Mark83 20:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links on [[Formula One]] 

message: I've noticed that some circuits had a layout change: in the Catalunya circuit a chicane has been added between the Europcar and the New Holland turns; in Spa the bus stop chicane has been moved a little towards the Blanchimont corner, and La Source has been moved about 100m further to allow the building of the new pit complex. Can someone find the updated data for these circuits (such as track length and the number of laps), since I can't find them and the official F1 site still has the old values? And can someone paint new maps? I can't do that either.
Just another thing: in the Fuji Speedway article says the best lap is still Jody Scheckter's. Isn't more appropriate to say there's still no best time, since the circuit layout has been changed heavily? Same applies to Catalunya and Spa. Asendoh 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is customary to note the outright lap record regardless of circuit layout. Hence Monza's previous record remained unchanged for many years after the chicanes were installed. Adrian M. H. 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Circuit updates

message: There's currently some inconsistency in the format of driver names in constructor career summary tables. Most of the tables (e.g. Toyota F1, British American Racing, Red Bull Racing, Jordan Grand Prix, Minardi, Midland F1 Racing, Scuderia Toro Rosso, Super Aguri F1) have the driver's full name. But a couple of the recently created/updated ones (notably Williams F1 and Sauber) have the driver's surname and flag icon. Noting concerns about table width, what's our preference? Or would just surname be better? DH85868993 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Driver names in constructor career summary tables 

message: How do we want to display and link references to the Ford-Cosworth DFV (and other Ford engines) in:
* race result tables (and other places where we are just displaying the engine manufacturer's name, e.g. "Ford")
* driver, constructor and chassis career summaries (where we usually display the engine manufacturer + configuration, e.g. "Ford V8")
I think for most references to the DFV, the manufacturer name is displayed as "Ford" (although I know there are some places where it's displayed as "Cosworth") but what it links to varies widely: some instances link to Ford, some to Ford Motor Company, some to Cosworth and some to Cosworth DFV. I don't have strong feelings about what is "the correct answer" but I think it would be good to try to have a consistent approach. DH85868993 08:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Ford-Cosworth DFV (and other Ford engines) 

message: The recent addition of career summary tables to WilliamsF1 and Frank Williams Racing Cars has got me to thinking: What do we want to see in the career summary tables for constructors like Williams who both raced their own cars and supplied cars to others? Note that FWRC is a particularly complicated example, because they:
* raced cars they constructed under their own name (i.e. "Williams")
* raced cars they constructed under sponsors' names (i.e. "Politoys", "Iso Marlboro")
* raced cars constructed by others (March, Brabham, De Tomaso)
* sold cars they constructed to others
So, what do we want to see in the career summary table for FWRC?:
* works "Williams" entries? Of course.
* works "Politoys" and "Iso Marlboro" entries? I think so.
* non-works "Williams" entries? I think so.
* non-Williams cars entered by FWRC? I think so.
The next question is how to present the information. We could have two tables; one for FWRC as an entrant and one for FWRC as a constructor. Features of this approach are that there would be some degree of duplication between the two tables and the constructor's points might appear to "not add up" if the privateers contribute to the constructor's points total (I don't think this is an issue for FWRC, but it certainly will be for Brabham, Lotus and Cooper).
Or we could just have one big table including both works and non-works entries. If we did this, would we want to somehow distinguish works entries from non-works?
Even thought FWRC is a particularly severe case, we're going to have similar issues with Lotus, Brabham, Cooper, Maserati and Ferrari. Thoughts? DH85868993 14:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Williams career summary tables 

message: For those drivers who competed in non-championship F1 races (of which there are plenty), what are we putting in the "Former F1 driver" infobox?:
* their Formula One stats, or
* their World Championship stats?
Noting that for drivers such as Fangio, Moss and Ascari, the two sets of numbers are quite different. If it's the latter (which I think it is), I suggest that we change the heading within :template:Former F1 driver from "Formula One career" to "World Championship career". Thoughts? DH85868993 14:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been following the WC convention to date. For non-Champ races there are simply too many of them, and they are too poorly recorded on the whole, to make inclusion in the box worthwhile. The wording change would make this point plain, so I'm for it. Pyrope 16:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I changed it. DH85868993 14:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  template:Former F1 driver 

message: Hi,
I'm currently putting on the main templates for all Formula One races in the 1994 Formula One season. I've got to the 1994 Pacific Grand Prix, and I can't find anywhere the Pacifc template for the flag? Can anyone help me, or even insert a template into the required slot. I found an image, but i don't know whether you can convert it into a template. Davnel03 17:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are probably thinking of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community.  Adrian M. H. 18:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacific Flag template 

message: From the item above, I'm just letting you know I have fully created Simtek S941 and Pacific PR01. If there is anyhthing major I've missed off, can you change it. I'm in the middle of Sauber C13. I would be very greatful if somebody could start helping me on the other 1994 car articles. A website which I get the vast majority of information off is:
*[]
The website is in French, so if you cannot understand it, convert it to English, using []
Many thanks, and I hope to see these pages being updated more often!
Davnel03 14:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It's good that you're contributing, and adding new articles, it really is, but please don't go on about how other people need to do more. That's not really how wikipedia works, sorry. As was said previously, there's not many of us who are really actively editing F1 articles, and we all have our own little obsessions. If yours is the 1990s, then great, go for it, and others will add what they want, when they want. There's plenty to be done, and the Simtek and Pacific pages probably aren't top of everyone's list, don't be surprised by that. Sorry if this sounds rude, but if you see something to do, want it to be done and know how to go about it, then, why not just do it? If you need specific help with something, then don't hesitate to ask, but please don't expect others to jump on the same tasks as you.Spute 20:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simtek + Pacific 

message: Sorry about me asking so many things recently.
Anyway, I've just noticed this: Category:Formula One race reports. It has all the races from 1950-1989, then every race from the 1990's are missing as well as all the races from the 2000's (apart from US GP). Is there any reason why? Can someone put these all in one category?
Many thanks
Davnel03 18:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Davnel03, this topic is already under discussion here DH85868993 01:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race Reports 

message: It's currently a FAC. Please  help improve it and/or show your support because nothing is happening at the moment. Buc 11:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monaco Grand Prix 

message: Hi, a while back I uploaded these pictures onto Wikipedia:
thumb|right|100px
Unfortunately, these I think might be copyright infrigment. I don't know whether to put these on articles or not, in case they do violate copyright. Could somebody delete or keep depending on whether they infrige copyright - I'd be very greatful. If they don't - they can be put in the appropriate articles. Most are quite good.
Davnel03 22:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason that they are quite good is that they are all professional photos, uploaded from a pro site. They are all copyvio and will all be deleted asap. There is no point in loading them into articles because as soon as a proper admin sees them they will go apesh*t. NEVER upload from a commercial site. NEVER attribute GNU licencing to photos you copy from a copyrighted site. Quite how you managed to miss (ignore?) all the warnings that pop up duing the upload process I'm not sure, but they are there. I suggest that you actually read some of the guidance pages. Pyrope 22:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Davnel's realised that now Pyrope. Image copyright is one of the hardest things to understand on Wikipedia, with most people coming from a web culture where everything is taken and used without permission. However Davnel, I did explain the situation with regard to image copyright back in December on your talkpage - the key rule is unless it states it's GFDL/Creative Commons then it isn't and can't be used. Alexj2002 22:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures I Uploaded 

message: Jésus Iglesias was recently moved to Jesús Iglesias. I've fixed the double-redirects, but before I update the spelling within the article (which the mover neglected to do), do we have any evidence as to which is the correct spelling? Thanks. DH85868993 02:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I've updated all instances within the article to "Jesús". DH85868993 14:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jésus Iglesias  

message: There is some inconsistency in the tense used in the F1 car articles: some (e.g. Lotus 18) say "The <type> is..." while (most?) others (e.g. Minardi M193) say "The <type> was...". What do we want to see?:
* "is" for current season cars and "was" for non-current-season cars,
* "is" for all cars (i.e. as if the encyclopedia is answering a question, e.g. Question: "What is a Lotus 18?" Answer: "A Lotus 18 is....."), or
* something else?
Note that it's not quite as straightforward as for articles about people, where you use "is" for people who are living and "was" for people who are no longer living. Consider that the Mercedes-Benz W196 is no longer racing, but there is/are still example(s) in existence. DH85868993 07:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon that for vehicles in most cases the tense sould be present, as there are many examples of most F1 cars still around. I agree that they are not still running in front line competition, but with the increasing popularity of historic racing there are plenty of opportunities for obolete cars to be seen running as they were intended. The obvious exceptions, and there are others, are F1 Ferraris from pre-1970, when Enzo was inclined to scrap last year's model. Pyrope 08:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is is used for the present season e.g.:
The Scuderia Toro Rosso STR02 is a car competing in the 2006 Formula One season
Was is used for the past tense e.g.
The Pacific PR02 was a car competing in the 1995 Formula One season.
Is is virtually Now and doesn't make sense. I'd go with this format. Everything 1950 - 2006 is was, 2007 would be is.
Davnel03 15:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: But as Pyrope says, many of these cars are still not only in existence, but actually racing. (See Thoroughbred Grand Prix for example, which has several Brabhams and Lotuses, even a solitary Fittipaldi racing on a regular basis.) Surely we can only say is for these cars? I suggest that if a car is known to be still in existence then it's is. If we know that it has been destroyed (Ferrari 156 Sharknose for example) then it's was. 4u1e 18:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly 4ule. I think the correct verbal construction for most cars would be something along the lines of "xx is a Formula One racing car ... that was used during the 19xx Formula One season".  Davnel03 writes that the "Pacific PR02 was a car competing in the 1995 Formula One season", which begs the question: what is it doing now? As the object still exists, and uless is has become a greengrocer in the meantime, the correct tense for its existence is still in the present. Pyrope 08:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the Pacific PR01 is no longer being used, for instance, the Ferrari 412T was a old Ferrari car - it's no longer in use in F1. The Ferrari F2007, is though. It doesn't matter if it's used in any other Formulas as it's a variation, not the exact type. Davnel03 12:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the Pacific is an old F1 car, present tense. It was used in F1 in the past, past tense. The car's continued existence means that present tense is used in describing what it is. What it was designed and used for may well be past tense. The only exceptions that I can think of in recent times may well be those Arrows chassis that Super Aguri converted into its first cars. Arguably, those vehicles no longer exist as Arrows cars, so their description would be in the past tense to reflect this. Pyrope 12:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd argue that a car exists as the conceptual idea, so even if it was used in F1, it is a racing car. Readro 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense in F1 car articles 

message: So, which is it? Currently we have both Scuderia Toro Rosso STR02 and Scuderia Toro Rosso STR2 (at a quick glance they seem identical) and the references in 2007 Formula One season, Scuderia Toro Rosso and template:STR have been changing backwards and forwards. DH85868993 12:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that Scuderia Toro Rosso STR02 has now been updated to be a redirect to Scuderia Toro Rosso STR2. DH85868993 14:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we rename Scuderia Toro Rosso STR01 to Scuderia Toro Rosso STR1 then? Davnel03 15:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the STR01 though wasn' it? For example: . Alexj2002 23:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Toro Rosso's website lists it as STR1. The359 23:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can somebody rename it and do a redirect as I don't know how to do it. Davnel03 12:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Easy as pie old boy. Just go to the page and hit the "move" tab at the top. Enter the new page name in the correct box and give a reason, and the Wiki elves will do all the hard work for you, even creating a redirect fromthe old page name. You just have to then go through and ix the double redirects. Pyrope 12:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, by the way Pyrope that was very offensive what you said. Davnel03 14:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. And if it came across as offensive then I'm sorry, it wasn't intended as such. Just out of curiosity, how? I was actually feeling quite cheerful when I typed it... Pyrope 14:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scuderia Toro Rosso STR(0)2 

message: The new selected article is supposed to be chosen today, but none of the candidates have had any votes other than their original nominations. What do we do? Pick the one that was nominated first? Readro 00:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: oops... really ought to pass through the portal more than once a month... Pyrope 12:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selected article 

message: Currently there's some degree on inconsistency regarding the use of:
* Scuderia Toro Rosso/Toro Rosso/STR
* Red Bull/RBR
* Midland/MF1
as constructor names. Consider that we have an article called Scuderia Toro Rosso STR01, but in 2006 Australian Grand Prix we find references to a "STR-Cosworth" and a "Toro Rosso-Cosworth". Similarly, 2006 Australian Grand Prix also refers to both a "RBR-Ferrari" and a "Red Bull-Ferrari" and we have an article called Midland M16, yet 2006 Australian Grand Prix refers to a "MF1-Toyota". I think we need to decide on one variant for each and make all the references consistent. DH85868993 02:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personall, so long as the first instance of the car indicates that both are applicable (e.g. Scuderia Toro Rosso-Cosworth, which would then indicate that STR- and Toro Rosso- are abbreviations), then I think a little variability within an article helps the readability. Too much uniformity becomes repetitious. Pyrope 08:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the abbreviations should be used. Midland is shorter than Williams and doesn't need abbreviating. Red Bull isn't exactly a long name either. Toro Rosso is an acceptable shortening of Scuderia Toro Rosso. Readro 14:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  STR, RBR, MF1 

message: I was just looking on the Red Bull RB3 article, and noticed a list of testing times. Ive removed them as it's really not notable. Should I put it back on the page or not? Davnel03 18:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are dead right that they aren't notable. Just watch how they bear no relationship to this year's finishing positions... ;-) Pyrope 09:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006-07 Testing Times 

message: The article for the next improvement drive is Tyrrell Racing. Readro 00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Improvement Drive article 

message: This page is getting extremely long - isn't it about time it got archived? Davnel03 09:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've archived everything that (a) looked resolved and (b) hadn't been updated since January. DH85868993 07:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we have an archive?? 

message: I was looking at some of the teams that have been taking over, with Jordan Grand Prix changing to Midland F1 and finally Spyker F1, and I was thinking, shouldn't Footwork have their own page too? I mean, didn't someone take over Arrows and renamed them Footwork? It's like what happened with Midland. I think Footwork deserves it's own page. I don't think this is on one of the archives, I just thought I'd bring it up. Davnel03 13:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something stopping you? -- Ian Dalziel 17:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering what other people thought about Footwork having it's own page. I mean - is it a good idea - or what? Davnel03 18:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'd be against it, mainly because Footwork was short-lived and became Arrows again afterwards. It fits in with the Arrows story and anyone reading that article would have to go to the Footwork article to check that bit, and then go back to Arrows. Spyker will never be Midland again, or Jordan. Bretonbanquet 00:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but Frank Williams Racing Cars and WilliamsF1 are in seperate articles. Also,Stewart Grand Prix, Jaguar F1 and Red Bull Racing have their own articles. I can't see any reason why Footwork doesn't get it's own article. It can still have it's own section inside Arrows, with a much bigger article on it's oewn. There's nothing wrong with that is there? Davnel03 17:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No, nothing wrong with it - that was just my opinion, that's all. If you want to do one, just go ahead :) Bretonbanquet 17:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Footwork should have its own article, but it should be distingiushed from the parent company, as, for example, Leyton House Racing is distinguished from Leyton House.--Diniz 17:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created the article under the name Footwork Arrows. I've copied-pasted the detail out of the Arrows article into the Footwork Arrows article. If anyone can add detail, please do. I'll try and add bits as I go along. Davnel03 10:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. I've adjusted the text slightly as it was out of context, but I reckon it's fair that they get their own page. Pyrope 11:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you on both of those points.--Diniz 12:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just put the box on the page; you might need to make a few edits. Davnel03 13:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footwork