Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 8

message: I've just noticed something which I wanted to bring up. The Lotus 107 article starts like this:
The Lotus 107 was a Formula One car designed for the 1994 Formula One Season, it brought in a final, frustratingly limited and short-lived period of competitiveness for the legendary Team Lotus in Formula 1.
However, in the 1992 season article, it says the Lotus 107 is used for this season. For the 1993 season, it says the Lotus 107B is used for this season. For the 1994 season, it says the Lotus 107C is used for this season.
Which version is right? Davnel03 17:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter. The article even refers to 1992. Changed it. -- Ian Dalziel 17:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lotus 107]] 

message: Currently, Scuderia is a redirect to Scuderia Ferrari. I agree with the comment on the "Scuderia Ferrari" talk page which says that it should not. But I wasn't sure what to do about it. Would it be better to:
* nominate Scuderia for deletion
* change it into an article about the "Scuderia" magazine (listed here but about which I know nothing further]]),
* turn it into a disambiguation page, listing "Scuderia" magazine and Scuderia Ferrari (and all the other "Scuderias", i.e. Scuderia Toro Rosso, Scuderia Italia, Scuderia Centro-Sud, etc?), or
* something else?
DH85868993 02:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A diambiguation page sounds like a good idea, with a brief definition in the intro. Something like "Scuderia means stable in the Italian language. It has enetered English usage manily through motorsport, where many Italian organisations use the term." Not too well phrased, but you get the point. Then you can do the usual diambig thing. Pyrope 10:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks for the guidance. DH85868993 13:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scuderia 

message: What do we want to see in the infobox for current F1 teams?:
* Last race: n/a
* Last race: n/a (current team)
* Last race: Current team
* Latest race: 2006 Brazilian Grand Prix
* nothing
Noting that:
* we could use the word "Final" instead of "Last" (whichever we choose, we should probably make template:F1 team and template:Former F1 team consistent])
* if we go for the "Latest race" option, then every current team's article will have  to be updated after every race (but they will anyway, since their "number of races" will have changed)
:Latest for currently active teams, and Final for defunct outfits would leave little room for confusion. Pyrope 10:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. DH85868993 13:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last/Latest/Final race for current F1 teams 

message: When populating templates, does number of Grands Prix mean number of races entered or just the number actually started? Once I know the answer, I'll include it on the discussion page for the relevant templates, for the benefit of future editors. Thanks. DH85868993 14:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To my mind, it should only mean starts, not just turning up and having a go at qualifying. That's the widely accepted statistical approach outside of Wikipedia. Adrian M. H. 15:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about drivers who qualify but don't start? Gilles Villeneuve's last race at Zolder is normally included in his stats for example, but he was killed in qualifying and didn't race. 4u1e 09:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience it generally means 'number of GPs entered', and I don't accept that the other way is the usual way - most reputable sources specify both the number of entries and the number of starts.  In some cases we would otherwise have "GPs = 0", which looks like a driver has never been involved in a grand prix, and might invite deletionists to start pruning articles.  A grand prix is the whole weekend, not just the race on a Sunday. There's surely no obstacle to putting both stats for entries and starts in the infobox..? Bretonbanquet 13:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, "GP starts" are what are commonly specified in driver stats: In Autosport and many other specialist magazines, they list starts only (with limited space, they prefer to distinguish between the two figures). On Forix, where there is more room for figures, presences are listed, with starts highlighted: see Fernando Alonso, for example. Speedsport, for example, has followed the "starts approach" and opted to list only Julia Kuhn's two starts in the F3 Euroseries, even though she attempted to qualify for two races at another round. As we don't have any particular space limitations, I would concur with you 100% that both figures should be included, but as far as Wiki goes, there should always be that distinction between starts and appearances. Including in Villeneuve's stats a race that occured after his death is only misleading and inaccurate: that some other sources simply list all presences without any distinction does not necessarily make it good practice.  Adrian M. H. 13:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Don't worry about re-starts: I have never heard of anyone counting them as separate starts,
as it is not a new race as such. Adrian M. H. 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem I find is when a race starts, and there's a huge pile-up and someone's car is destroyed - if there's no spare or he's injured, that driver doesn't make the re-start.  So did he start or not?  Often you see that counted as a 'DNS' - I recall Niki Lauda's reaction to the idea that he didn't start the 1976 German Grand Prix - he said, "So what happened to my ears?" Bretonbanquet 23:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A driver is deemed to have started a Formula One Grand Prix once his car has crossed the start line under its own power. If it fails to make a re-start, it is still classified as a starter, and should be listed in the finishing classification as a DNF. If it breaks down on the formation lap, or fails to make the start itself for any other reason, then it has not started the race. Indy 2005 for example. Adrian M. H. 00:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We agree then :o)  That's the way I've always looked at it, but there are those who have other ideas - such as the concept that any red-flagged starts are totally null and void and only the final successful start counts, hence those who don't make the restart are classed as DNS.  Ideally, no-one here will give us an argument and it'll all be simple. Bretonbanquet 00:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd suggest having the heading as "Races (starts)" and then the stat showing 49 (40), for example, so it could just be shown on one line. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 10:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea. Since we're not adding an extra element to the templates, we won't immediately break all the transclusions. Good thinking, AlbinoMonkey! - DH85868993 10:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me - Races (starts) seems to be a very simple way of doing it, and it shouldn't take too long. Many will actually be the same figure, e.g. Races (starts) - 23 (23).  The thing with entries gets complicated when you see that drivers were entered in races in advance, with the result that sometimes a driver that had been killed in the previous race is still officially entered for the next one, even though it'll never be included in his stats.  I would say "Presences" is a better bet if we want to be more specific than simply "Races". Bretonbanquet 18:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty close, but if you want to have just one line for the data, I would go for something along the lines of Races:(starts/entries) or Entries/starts: as I think either of those makes it clearer. Two seperate lines would, of course, be preferable in an ideal world! Adrian M. H. 18:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: seems like a fair way to deal with it. Grands Prix, as I see it, cover the whole weekend. You can enter a Grand Prix and not start the race, e.g. not qualify or have a mechanical failure. MonkeyMumford 12:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Grands Prix when populating templates 

message: Autosport has updated its hub page for F1 season info, ready for 2007, complete with journal links, detailed circuit maps and other useful data. It's available at http://www.autosport.com/f1/2007.html I'm sure this will prove convenient for upcoming research.  -  Adrian M. H. 21:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nice idea. However, we would have to rely on people who have a subscription. MonkeyMumford 12:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A useful link to data for the 2007 F1 season 

message: I thought it would be a good idea to post a reminder about our parent WP; WikiProject Motorsport. We currently have only two editors listed on the List of Members, but I'm sure that there are more of you out there! Those of you who haven't already contributed to it are more than welcome to do so, particularly if you have specialised knowledge of any racing discipline that doesn't have a dedicated WP. If enough editors get together and coordinate their efforts, we can make a big difference to the neglected areas of Wikpedia's motor racing content. Regards, Adrian M. H. 20:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't forget WikiProject Motorsport 

message: There's currently some inconsistency in the use of :Category:Formula One race reports. Prior to 1988, the individual race reports (e.g. 1987 Australian Grand Prix) are in :Category:Formula One race reports. From 1988 onwards (with a few exceptions), the individual race reports are in :Category:19xx in Formula One and :Category:19xx in Formula One is in :Category Formula One race reports. I'm not sure I agree with the post-1988 arrangement, because :Category:19xx in Formula One can contain things other than race reports - for example :Category:1994 in Formula One contains Death of Ayrton Senna. I'd rather see:
* all the individual race reports in :Category:Formula One race reports and :Category:19xx in Formula One, and
* :Category:19xx in Formula One not in :Category:Formula One race reports.
Thoughts? P.S. Apologies if this has been discussed before - I did look through the archives, but there is a lot of stuff in there! DH85868993 14:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have raised a good point, of which I wasn't aware. The first system seems logical, but the second version may leave some articles mis-categorised. Adrian M. H. 14:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In order to resolve this problem, I would propose the creation of the categories  :Category:19xx Formula One race reports into :Category:Formula One race reports and :Category:19xx in Formula One. In :Category:2006 in Formula One and :Category:2007 in Formula One they have been already created the categories for the cars participants at Formula One World Championship, respectively :Category:2006 Formula One season cars and :Category:2007 Formula One season cars. I think that in the same way can be subdivided therefore also the races disputed year by year. As an example, in the 1994 let the article Death of Ayrton Senna into :Category:1994 in Formula One and all races into :Category:1994 Formula One race reports. What do you think? Piniricc65 14:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Good solution. Let's do it. DH85868993 02:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Formula One race reports 

message: FYI, it's been proposed to rename :Category:Williams people to :Category:Williams Formula Team. Those with an opinion on the subject may care to comment here - DH85868993 14:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Following discussion, the proposal is now to rename :Category:Williams people to :Category:Williams Formula One people. Furthermore, it has been proposed to rename :Category:McLaren people to :Category:McLaren Formula One people. See discussion here. Note that it has not been proposed to rename :Category:Ferrari people, on the basis that the category is not limited to F1-related people. DH85868993 14:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we do that, that means we'd have to do it for ever team renaming it, no offense, but in a way, it's a bit pointless, we should just keep it the same, it's doing no harm. There again, I admit :Category:Williams Formula One does sound better. Somebody should put in a proposal for the rest too. Davnel03 15:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No offence taken, Davnel. Just to clarify, I'm not the one proposing the changes; I'm just reporting it here so that people who are interested can make their views known on the CfD page. Also, what do you mean by "the rest"? As far as I'm aware, there are only the three categories this applies to: :Category:Williams people, :Category:McLaren people and :Category:Ferrari people. DH85868993 02:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just one quick query. All three of the debated teams are or have been involved in ventures away from F1. Ferrari sports racing cars, the McLaren F1, Williams's involvement in touring cars etc etc. Would the new categories be specifically for their F1 personnel? If the answer is yes, thn I can only feel that we are being narrow minded. Pyrope 08:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, :Category:McLaren people has been renamed as :Category:McLaren Formula One people and the relevant articles have been updated. DH85868993 03:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise, :Category:Williams people has now been renamed as :Category:Williams Formula One people and the affected articles have been updated. DH85868993 04:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed renaming of [[:Category:Williams people]] 

message: Recently I've updated quite a few driver career summary tables. When filling in the "Entrant" columns, on numerous occasions I've had to decide whether to enter the name of a minor team as a red wikilink, or just plain text. To date, I've been making somewhat arbitrary decisions, primarily based on my best guess as to whether the team is ever likely to have its own article. Is that a sensible approach? Or should we specify all team names as wikilinks, on the off chance that someday an article might be created for them? The same question applies to the "Private Entrants" section of List of Formula One constructors - do we want to see a long list of red links thee? Or no red links at all? Or just red links for the teams which we think are likely to have their own article someday? DH85868993 07:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the teams are notable enough to have articles created which will not be deleted, then I would say keep the red links, as this will encourage people to create them.  If the team's aren't notable enough, then there's probably no point (I noticed yesterday that the minor team Olson was deleted for not being notable enough).  However, this solution is subjective and arbitrary, so we might just have to rely on trial-and-error. ;-) --Diniz 17:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - most of the teams that are notable enough to have their own articles already have them. If one turns up that hasn't got an article but could realistically have one, redlink it. If it seems unlikely, don't bother. Trial and error seems like the way forward. It's not like we can't link things afterwards if articles get created. Bretonbanquet 17:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't fear the red links. They serve a purpose when reading: in addition to the "please write me" message that they send, they also highlight to a casual reader that no further information exists on that topic and is therefore no point in spending time searching for it. Pyrope 18:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinks for minor teams? 

message: I've just nominated this for feature article. To vote, it's at this link. Davnel03 17:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to a peer review instead.  Please comment!--Diniz 21:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2006 Formula One season]] 

message: Seems as the season has yet to start, we haven't got any freely licenced photos of the new cars. I've noticed that copyrighted photos have been put up on some articles. Nearly all have no fair use rationale. Just a reminder that we need the FU rationale, and also to only upload press promotional photographs released by the constructor and not commercial/news agency photos (such as the soon to be deleted :Image:BMW F1.07.jpg). Alexj2002 22:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well article-wise I have some regret. However if the uploader can't be bothered to provide a fair use rationale I have no problem with the deletion whatsoever. Mark83 01:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  agreed. Fair Use Rationale should always be added and only promo photos from the constructor are allowed. Although how about promotional photos from sponsors? MonkeyMumford 21:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2007 F1 Car Photos

message: Should Formula One games that have come out on PS2, PC and XBox be included in WikiProject Formula One? I don't think they are at the moment, and I think we should include them - they are part of F1. Davnel03 14:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really our field of expertise though. Yeah we could include them as they're F1 related, but I doubt we'd do much work on them (there's hundreds of articles that would take precedent). WP:CVG cover them at the moment, I think it's best left to them. Alexj2002 14:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formula One games

message: I've nominated him for deletion; the discussion is here. Davnel03 17:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've actually discussed him before but I forgot to do anything about it. Readro 18:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can somebody perform a merge to 1977 South African Grand Prix - I don't know how to. Davnel03 20:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jansen Van Vuuren]]

message: Some of you may have noticed that:
* following discussions on its talk page, the former "Alfa Corse" article has been renamed as Alfa Romeo in motorsport. (Alfa Corse remains as a redirect). The rational was that the name "Alfa Corse" suggests works involvement, whereas the intent of the article is/was to cover all motorsport involvement, including both works and non-works.
* F1-related references to "Alfa Romeo" are now being linked to Alfa Romeo (Formula One) (which is a redirect to Alfa Romeo in motorsport#Formula One) rather than Alfa Corse. My rationale, as explained on the talk page is that I suspect that as Alfa Romeo in motorsport develops, there will come a time when the F1 section will be split out as a separate article. So I thought it made sense to define a dedicated F1 article (redirect) from the start, so that all the links only need to be changed once.
A question:
* Would people have been happy/preferred if I had named the article as "Alfa Romeo F1" rather than "Afa Romeo (Formula One)" ?
If there's overwhelming support for "Alfa Romeo F1", I might change it. DH85868993 06:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the Alfa Romeo links are all done now (so I withdraw my offer to change the name :-). And Alfa Corse is no longer a redirect; it's now an article in its own right again. DH85868993 11:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alfa Romeo (Formula One) 

message: Diniz suggested this article and I was pretty interested about it. But I only know the major milestones:
*1973 Dutch Grand Prix - Lack and Equipment and Training for marshals ultimately costs the life of rookie driver Roger Williamson
*1977 South African Grand Prix - Over emthusiasm cost a young Jansen Van Vuuren his life after being struck by Tom Pryce along a blind brow.
*2000 Italian Grand Prix
*2001 Australian Grand Prix
Indeed as you can see, I've forgotten a few things. Like:
* When was the first race with marshals?
* Since Williamson's accident, have marshalling preparation been improved?
Anyway, I'd like to hear your thoughts.--Skully Collins Edits 07:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe their's no reason why there's not an article - there really should be. Davnel03 16:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Marshalling in Formula One? 

message: I've just noticed something in the template races boxes on several race reports. For some, we list roman numerals and some we list the normal number e.g.
Roman Numerals:      XXXVI Monaco Grand Prix </br>Normal:              36th Monaco Grand Prix
Which one should we use (I prefer the first one)? Davnel03 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on the race's official name. Most seem to be Roman from what I can see. Pyrope 20:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number for GP's 

message: I've made some changes on the WikiProject Motorsport Assessment page. I've done this so it goes in line with other projects, see this assessment page for example. Please don't delete it though - it's taken a long time for me to do. Davnel03 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment Page on WPMotorsport 

message: Do we really need (to use) the partial lists of World Drivers Champions (i.e. ,  and )? I contend that the full list, without the "navigation bit" down the bottom, isn't much different in size (height) to the partial lists. And if we only had/used the full list, then we don't need the "navigation bit". Also consider that Prost and Senna each have two partial lists in their articles, which together occupy way more space than a single complete list would. Thoughts? DH85868993 13:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the full list is a better option. The other one adds clutter to category listings and the years selected are halfway arbitrary. Guroadrunner 00:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I had always thought that they were pointless. Not only the arbitrary nature as pointed out above, but their layout makes them hard to read. Pyrope 16:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've updated all the WDCs' articles to use the full list. I'll get around to deleting the partial templates soon. DH85868993 07:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The partial lists have been deleted. See Tfd discussion here. DH85868993 05:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial lists of World Drivers Champions 

message: Scuderia Ferrari and McLaren each have sections entitled "Records", and Toyota F1 has a section entitled "F1 Statistics", all which have recently been the subject of a fair bit of activity (and some debate on the respective talk pages). Do we want to apply some common guidelines to these sections (and any similar, future ones), e.g.:
* duplication of information already present in the infobox
* which "records"/statistics are worthy of inclusion
* clarification of whether a particular number is the current (or former) record across all teams/constructors, or whether it's just the "record" for this particular team/constructor
etc. Or are we happy for each article to develop independently, with discussions occurring on the respective talk pages? DH85868993 01:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's something we absolutely have to standardise - some teams don't hold any records, while others have lots. My only concern at Toyota F1 was the degree of duplication between the infobox and the 'statistics' section. I think it's easy to go over the top on statistics, and I do get a bit impatient with things like 'Only left handed driver to win three races in a row where the first race began with an 'F' and there was a 'J' in the month. In a green car.'. On the other hand, many people find statistics fascinating, so I've no objection to them, provided they're referenced (and true!). 4u1e 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Records" section in F1 constructor/team articles 

message: Monaco Grand Prix is still on FAC. At the moment, I don't think it will pass, partly because of objections that I have raised, although others have expressed similar views. I'm struggling on completing the referencing of the article - in particular on the organisation of the race. If anyone can contribute the missing refs that would be great.
I also have some suggestions on structure on the talk page - to do with the 'notable races' section. I'd be grateful for the views of other editors. Thanks. 4u1e 20:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Monaco Grand Prix FAC

message: I just wanted to say that 2006 Brazilian Grand Prix is an excellent example of a report page. All report pages should look like this. --Thelb4 08:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's getting there. But for me, the position and size of the images used has really messed up the text formatting. The might be pretty, but they make it hard to read. Pyrope 10:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I'd say that 1994 San Marino Grand Prix, 1997 European Grand Prix and 2005 United States Grand Prix should be used as the benchmarks for F1 race reports (seems as they are all either FA's or GA's). There are way to many pictures on the Brazilian one, even having a picture before the lead! The majority of the 'one car only' pictures don't add to the article and should go IMO. The infobox map doesn't look professional. Some of the trivia in the notes section (esp. the Massa flag incident) should either go in the article or get deleted. (I'd say Massa flag should go into the article and the Raikkonnen incident seems pretty non-notable and should be removed). Oh and to cap it off, the article has just 4 references. I'd say it's probably a B-class article at the moment. Alexj2002 12:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not a huge difference in layout is there? Although Alex is right - better to take as your models those articles that have been assessed as meeting GA or FA. I agree that there are too many pictures - and I don't think pictures in the lead is normal practice (although one has been added to the 2005 US GP as well). Four references is of course not enough for GA standard - and one of those is a Youtube link, which needs to go as well because it's copyrighted material illegally reproduced on Youtube. 4u1e 16:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact it's already been taken down from Youtube, so I've removed the reference. 4u1e 16:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent example 

message: Is there any interest in differentiating between exclusions and bans in driver results tables? I always understood an exclusion to be a disqualification during practice or qualifying, either for an on-track incident, a technical infringement, or for missing a weight check. This used to happen quite often during the 1980s and early 1990s, for example Stefano Modena at the 1988 Mexican Grand Prix and the 1988 Monaco Grand Prix. A ban, such as the one that BAR and their drivers received a couple of years ago for the fuel tank infringement is a different thing, resulting in that driver or team not being present at the event at all. I suggest adding a "Ban" code to the template to illustrate the difference. At the moment, "EX" is used to cover both eventualities. Bretonbanquet 16:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they both mean the same thing; I'd use exclusive it sounds more technical.Davnel03 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always read it much the same as you Bretonbanquet, with exclusion meaning to get taken out of the event, and ban to mean not allowed to participate in the event in the first place. Alexj2002 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to remember that we discussed something along the lines of... if a competitor doesn't participate at all then we leave the box blank in the table. Precise reasons to be given in the article. I'm not fussed either way mind. Pyrope 19:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Exclusions / Bans

message: What do people think of Diniz's idea of highlighting fastest laps in driver and constructor career summary tables in italics, similar to the way in which we highlight pole positions in bold. DH85868993 09:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we agreed this was a reasonable idea? Pyrope 13:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fastest laps in summary tables