Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 9

message: It's been suggested by Howard the Duck, Talk:2007_Formula_One_season#Tyres that when there is only 1 tyre manufacturer in a particular season, i.e Bridgestone for 2007, that the individual red B's, etc. are removed from each page as there is only the 1 manufacturer.  I disagree with this as someone looking back over the history of F1 would be interested to see how the tyre wars, etc. have developed (not to mention masses of work changing each page, when there is nothing wrong with the current system).  I've also posted here as this is something that doesn't just affect 2007, but the F1 project generally.  Your thoughts would be appreciated. Davesmith33 17:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no harm in leaving it. Yes it's redundant, but it takes virtually no space and maintains consistency. It has, by the wya, been known in the past for a tyre manufacturer to return part way through the season, although I admit there is virtually zero chance of it happening this year. I suppose next year is a slightly different matter, because then only one manufacturer will be permitted. 4u1e 22:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the single tire manufacturer rule can change back in just a few years, knowing the instability of F1 rules at the moment. The359 22:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyre icons when there is only one manufacturer 

message: Hi, just browsing around Formula One articles, when I come across :Category:Formula One. Several articles in this category struck out to me, especially:
*A Season With McLaren - A series on BBC in 1993
*Alonsomania - Fancruft
*BusinessF1 Magazine - A magazine in UK that's not very known
*Triple Crown of Motorsport - I've never heard of this
*Untitled Bruce McLaren biopic - A film that it says is coming out in 2009
*WilliamsF1 Grand Prix results - Results that I've just inserted into the WilliamsF1 page
Can some of these be considered deletion, I mean A Season With McLaren is a non-notable TV series, the Alonsomania term is a group of fans and the Williams results article is already listed in the WilliamsF1 article? I think these should be considered deletion. Davnel03 18:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Season With McLaren was broadcast on a major broadcaster (BBC) so I'd class it as notable. Alonsomania - doesn't seem to meet any criteria so I'd say it can go. BusinessF1 Magazine - articles about it on GrandPrix.com so I'd say it can stay. Triple Crown of Motorsport. Bruce McLaren biopic - multiple secondary sources cited in the article. Finally, I believe the WilliamsF1 Grand Prix results were not in the main article for a reason, that is they make it overly long. Alexj2002 18:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Triple Crown of Motorsport certainly deserves to stay, it is well established that the Big 3 races are the Monaco GP, Indy 500, and Le Mans, or debatebly an F1 World Championship instead of just a Monaco GP win. The359 18:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the Alonsomania should be deleted. I mean, if it stays, what's to stop other users making similar pages for Senna and Schumacher who are/were just as equally popular with Formula One fans? The Business magazine I think should stay as it is one of the major publications on the UK, I guess. Triple Crown of Motorsports is a very pretigious feat to achieve, I think only Graham Hill has achieved this, can anyone confirm it? When I first heard about, I was pretty interested in the movie and I wouldn't mind going to see it...when it comes out (possibly) next year! The Williams results table I think should have a seperate article, because the article's structure goes: Origins; History; Results; Activety outside F1, Now having an entire table of F1 results would mean a hell of a lot of scrolling down to do just to get to the activety outside F1 section, which I think is incovenient (sp?). Anyway, those are my opinions on the subject(s)...--Skully Collins Edits 14:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a thought, if Williams get their own results page, shouldn't teams like Ferrari and McLaren have their own results page?? Davnel03 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite probably, yes. The reason Williams has, is because it was being worked on for GA status at one point as an attempt at getting an model constructor article (although it failed). Ferrari and McLaren haven't yet had this treatment. Alexj2002 17:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several Articles Not Needed 

message: In most F1-related instances of "Mugen-Honda", "Mugen" is wikilinked to Mugen Motorsports and "Honda" is linked to Honda Racing F1. Upon reflection, I think that the whole term "Mugen-Honda" should be linked to Mugen Motorsports, since that is where these engines are discussed in detail (They are only briefly mentioned in Honda Racing F1). A further question is whether to link "Mugen-Honda" directly to Mugen Motorsports, or to link it to Mugen-Honda (which redirects to Mugen Motorsports). I probably prefer the latter. Thoughts? DH85868993 00:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Mugen Motorsports is the best article to link to, the Honda one is far inferior with regard to Mugen engines themselves. I guess the other point matters less so long as you end up at Mugen Motorsports anyway, so either method would be fine in my opinion. Bretonbanquet 00:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. DH85868993 13:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done! Pyrope 14:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: FYI, I went with the latter option, i.e. I linked "Mugen-Honda" to Mugen-Honda (which redirects to Mugen Motorsports). That way if we ever decide that "Mugen-Honda" deserves its own article, or the place where these engines are described changes, we don't need to update all the links again. Also, I only updated the F1-related links; there were numerous F3000 and sports-car-related instances of "Mugen Honda" linked directly to Mugen Motorsports; I didn't update them. -- DH85868993 23:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mugen-Honda 

message: (previously discussed here with no conclusion)
The sample populated infobox templates indicate that references to individual races (e.g. "Debut" in template:F1 team) should take the form of: 1991 Belgian Grand Prix. I propose that they should just link to the specific race article, e.g. 1991 Belgian Grand Prix. If we adopt this change, I don't think we would need to update all the existing infoboxes immediately; we could just update them the next time we edit the article for other reasons. Thoughts? DH85868993 00:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. In fact I had the same thought today. It would be nice to sort this out if people can state their opinions :) Bretonbanquet 00:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well.  The current system seems a bit superfluous.--Diniz 11:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, agreed it's annoying clicking on it and going to a general page on the event rather than the race report. Alexj2002 21:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Unless the year itself is of specific importance (say, birth year) there is absolutely no point in Wikilinking it. Pyrope 21:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to specific races in infoboxes 

message: As you can see, this has been merged into MasterCard Lola.  I would prefer for it to be kept as a separate article.  Any thoughts?--Diniz 11:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're dead right, I'm going to split it back up now as it hasn't been discussed on this project. I think it doesn't matter if it was only in one race or one season, it should still have an article. Davnel03 16:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. By the way, the user in question, JackSparrow Ninja isn't even a member of this project. Davnel03 16:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That it hasn't been discussed on this project, or the user in question isn't a member is irrelevant really. This WP doesn't own any of the articles it supports. Alexj2002 21:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally agree that the articles should be separate, but Alex is right - none of the articles belong to anyone and the agreements we reach here are always open to question. Consensus is the important thing - so if JackSparrow (who does edit F1 articles fairly regularly, by the way) feels strongly about it you'll need to reach an agreement with him. Well, that's what I think, anyway! :D 4u1e 07:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes let's not get too posessive! In any case, as it stands that article is seriously underwhelming. Most of the text refers to the team's performance and not the design of the car. Unless someone fancies doing some expansion work on it I really can't see how to justify its retention as a separate article. A paragraph in the main team article would be plenty. Pyrope 09:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lola T97/30]] 

message: Okay then, I've rather nervously put Tom Pryce up for FAC. 
Please can you guys leave your comments (hopefully with the word "support" before the comment ;-)) here. Thanks.--Phill talk Edits 09:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Pryce FAC 

message: Many of the F1 driver articles start off with "Fred Nerk ... is a (former) Formula One driver." Isn't that a bit limiting, considering that (virtually) every F1 driver would also have also raced in other categories, and that, in many cases, a driver's F1 career is only a minor part of their overall career? (Recognising that for other drivers, their F1 career is a/the major part of their overall career). Might it better to write "Fred Nerk ... is a (former) racing driver. Nerk competed in Formula One from XXXX to YYYY, contesting N Grands Prix, scoring W wins and P poles, etc"? Note that for current drivers, there is a choice between "Fred Nerk is a Formula One driver" and "Fred Nerk is a racing driver. Nerk currently races in Formula One for the ZZZ team". Thoughts? DH85868993 02:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Curse you for a logical man! :D You're probably right, although many current F1 drivers have had fairly short careers outside F1, Kimi Raikkonen for example has raced far longer in F1 than he did in the feeder series, and really are notable only for their F1 careers. 4u1e 07:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on, didn't this come up three or four months ago? Under the guise of an argument about nationality attribution... I have been altering all the driver articles that I edit to the format that you propose. Even if they are pricipally known for driving in F1, their generic occupation is "racing driver". By the way, there has to be a song lyric with that title just waiting to be written. Pyrope 09:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fred Nerk is a Formula One driver 

message: Hi all. Please note my question at Talk:European Championship (auto racing). GP racing of the 1930's is not formula one per se, but it's its historical predecessor, so I hope some of you could have some ability to dig up the right information on this. John Anderson 08:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an on-going project of mine to sort these pages out. A lot of the numbers on the pages are wrong. For instance, the table doesn't even mention Hermann Paul Müller in 1939 despite the fact that he actually scored fewer points than Hermann Lang. I'm drafting out a new European Championship page because I feel the first one is factually incorrect in several places, and the formatting is not that great. Readro 11:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, it's nice to hear that. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. John Anderson 13:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My update has gone "live", so to speak. It's by no means as extensive as it could be, but I felt I had enough to get a representative page out. I'd welcome any additions you, or indeed anyone else, can think of. Readro 23:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand Prix points in the 1930's 

message: I've nominated Eau Rouge corner and Raidillon for deletion, their discussions are here and here. Davnel03 16:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add Blanchimont and Tamburello to that list. Davnel03 16:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Articles I've Nominated For Deletion 

message: Should all F1 driver stub articles contain ? Or only if they don't already contain another stub template? Consider Franco Comotti, which contains  - should it contain  as well? -- DH85868993 16:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, yes it should as he was a Formula On driver as well. Davnel03 19:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If you for some reason only want one stubmessage, I think the F1-stub is better than the Italianautoracerstub, since it seems more important that he was a formula one driver than that he happened to be Italian. However, best is to use both. John Anderson 07:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I also agree all F1 driver stub articles should contain  even if they already contain other stub templates. I just wanted to gather other people's opinions. -- DH85868993 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As stubbing an article also adds that article to the relevant stub category, each stub ought to carry a template for every relevant interest group. Pyrope 09:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: To correct myself, F1 driver stub articles should contain , not 
OK, another question. At what point should the stub templates be removed from a driver article? Recently User:DStoykov removed the stub templates from:
*Brian Shawe Taylor
*Hap Sharp
*Wolfgang Seidel
*Tony Settember
*Rob Schroeder
and I wasn't sure whether or not to put them back. DH85868993 05:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When to use F1-stub 

message: Before I go ahead and start these articles, I was wondering if these articles are really needed:
*1975 Arkley air crash - Air crash that took the lives of Graham Hill, Tony Brise and several other mechanics and personnel of the Embassy Hill team. TLG has an entire chapter on this topic, even a crash report.
*Red car rule - Very sensitive subject, covers the idea that the FIA are Ferrari biast.
*2006 Formula One season controversies - Quite a few during the season (mass dampers, Schu's Monaco "parking" and Alonso "blocking" Massa). Anyway, if the 2006 World Cup gets an article, why can't we?
Anyway, I'll leave you to decide if we can make these articles first.--Phill talk Edits 10:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "red car rule" theory is completely speculative and entirely unencyclopedic. Comments on 2006 should go in the 2006 season article. Arkley air crach might make an interesting article, provided that there is enough information to make a reasonable page. Perhaps take a look at the aviation wikiproject and see how they deal with air accident articles, I have a feeling they have some degree of standardisation already. Pyrope 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible articles? 

message: The (old) Spyker team template has a medium orange header over an orange box.
All of the other teams for the 2007 season, except McLaren, use a colored header over a white box.
For example: 
I am proposing the Spyker template is standardized to the other teams. What do you think?
The direct link to edit the template is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Spyker_F1&action=submit
Guroadrunner 10:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. The orange box is a bit hard on the eye! Pyrope 12:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it could keep the orange header but should have the box white like the others. John Anderson 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Guroadrunner 16:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Spyker team template 

message: At the bottom of each F1 race report, there is a navbox listing the previous/next WDC race and the previous/next running of that particular Grand Prix. Currently, there's some inconsistency in the population of the "previous/next running of that particular Grand Prix" fields, for the case where the previous/next race is a non-championship event. Consider that 1950 Monaco Grand Prix identifies the non-championship 1948 Monaco Grand Prix as the previous race, whereas 1963 Mexican Grand Prix specifies "-",  even though there was a previous, non-championship event (in 1962). Similarly, 1950 Monaco Grand Prix lists the next race as 1955 Monaco Grand Prix, skipping the non-championship 1952 event. Do we want non-championship races listed in the previous/next race fields or not? Note the complication that many non-championship races don't currently have articles, so if we include them in the sequence, then it may not be possible to "step through" all instances of a particular Grand Prix using the navbox, whereas if we limit it to WDC events only (all of which have articles), then it will be. Thoughts? -- DH85868993 06:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since in the navbox we write the direct links to form the list, perhaps we could write "race (non-chsmpionship)" for those currently not included. It also would let us chronologically include the non-WDC forays at Brands Hatch if they are not included yet. Guroadrunner 08:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The 1948 Monaco Grand Prix should have a link there because it was the previous running of the Monaco Grand Prix. Putting a dash implies there were no previous Monaco Grands Prix, when that simply isn't true. Readro 11:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, just because it wasn't a championship event doesn't mean that it wasn't there. And the Mexican example should have a link to 1962 as I put one there! Pyrope 19:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous/next races in F1 race report navbox 

message: I have suggested the article on 2005 United States Grand Prix for use on the Main Page as Today's featured article. Please feel free to add your comments here. Kingjamie 17:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My only comment would be that the TFA director reckons that maps don't work well on the front page. Perhaps you replace it with an appropriate photo? AlexJ 16:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 United States Grand Prix TFA 

message: On the discussion page for the Porsche article, I have proposed that the (rather sizeable) "Auto racing" section be split out into a separate article. The idea has received some support, so now I'm trying to decide on the best name for the new article. If you have a view on this, please contribute on the Porsche discussion page. P.S. I realise this is somewhat outside the scope of WP:F1, but this discussion page is somewhat more active than WP:MOTOR's (where I have also posted the same information). Thanks. DH85868993 17:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porsche motorsport article 

message: I believe the article request for Business F1 is asking for BusinessF1 Magazine, so I set that  page as a redirect. If I was incorrect, blank it out. Guroadrunner 11:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who made the submission, as a result, I have now taken it off the list. Willirennen 16:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business F1 

message: We had a discussion over the templates several weeks ago. Nothing (as of now) has been sorted out. If you like to show your opinion click here. Many thanks. Davnel03 16:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: Hi, I've noticed this page several times. The page lists every single Formula One articles on Wikipedia. What strikes me most are the red (dead) links that we have. I also noticed only one user seems to be editing it. I think we should try and create the dead link articles. I've made a start on one or two - only to be struck with a speedy deletion tag! If you can look on the page and try and create one or two articles, that'll be great, so the dead links will go down! Davnel03 18:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You were "struck" with db tags because you didn't provide proper or adequate context or information on notability. Wikipedia is not capable of hosting pages on every single detailed minutiae of each and every topic covered. We in the F1 community already have many and excellent database and specialist interest sites on the web if the details are what yanks your chain. If you can provide interesting and informative articles, something that you would like spend time reading, on any of the suggested topics (that's all the "dead links" are!) on the related pages site then by all means write them, but we certainly don't "need" one-line inanities. Pyrope 18:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a great temptation to create all the "missing" articles as soon as possible, isn't there? But I agree with Pyrope that it's probably better to hold off creating a particular article until we can create one with some substance. -- DH85868993 05:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Related Pages]] 

message: I note that the BRDC International Trophy race reports are identified by Roman numeral rather than year (e.g. I BRDC International Trophy, II BRDC International Trophy, etc). I suggest that these articles should be renamed to include the year instead, (e.g. 1949 BRDC International Trophy, 1950 BRDC International Trophy, etc), for consistency with most (all?) other (F1) race reports. I would recommend retaining the existing "Roman numeral" articles as redirects. Thoughts? -- DH85868993 13:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I've been doing for the European Championship is this - naming the article with the year and putting the name with the Roman numeral in the infobox - see 1937 German Grand Prix for an example. Readro 13:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started the BRDC reports before there were many non-Championship reports, and I basically followed the way that they are usually noted in results databases and on the Czech wiki. However, since the numbers have grown on here you are right in that they don't generally follow the convention that seem to be growing for race years to be the distinguishing title factor. I would be in favour of renaming for those reasons. However, it might be useful to first discuss what we are going to do about some of the Tasman and South African races that occasionally ran one side of Xmas, and at other times on the other. This sometimes resulted in two races in one calendar year, followed by no race the following year, so in these cases a simple year-based distinction isn't appropriate. By retaining the race numeration we solve these problems. Any thoughts? Pyrope 14:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's always the possibility of doing what the A1GP project is doing - call the season something like 2006-07 Tasman Series and then all the races would be given a 2006-07 style prefix. Readro 16:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work for races that were attached to a championship series, but not for the standalones. Also, by doing it that way you start to define the race in terms of the championship, which isn't the way that racing generally evolved. Just look at the EC races from before WWII; they were really separate races, participation in which allowed the driver to collect Championship points. This is also the way that F1 worked up until the end of the 1970s, although by that time the FIA was starting to strongarm the category into its current championship-led format. An A1GP race has to be defined in terms of an A1GP Championship, because without the series the race wouldn't exist. This isn't true of older F1 and GP racing. Pyrope 16:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true. Wasn't really thinking there. Maybe just a 1 or a 2 at the end if there are two races in a year would work. Readro 17:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd say that's an easier question to answer, that answer being yes on both counts. Nothing in the category headings that limit them to just WC events, and mixed F1/5000 events are still F1 events. Pyrope 18:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRDC International Trophy race reports 

message: Hi, I've just come accross this page, is it actually real, it lacks detail, big time? Davnel03 14:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is real. I've only just created the page, but it is referenced so I don't know why you are questioning its existence. I know it lacks detail - that's why I marked it as a stub. Readro 14:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[World Manufacturers' Championship]] 

message: #What do people think about adding "Career points" to :template:F1 driver and :template:Former F1 driver? (apologies if this has already been discussed)
#On the assumption that the "Last Championship" fields in :template:F1 driver refer to the last completed Championship season (i.e. for current drivers, they refer to 2006, not 2007), would it be worthwhile adding current Championship position/points? Noting that every current driver's article already needs to be updated after every race (to update the "Latest race" field).
DH85868993 02:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - The second idea would require either a) a dedicated person, or b) a "x championship points as of the X Grand Prix." notification, which clutters things up. Guroadrunner 05:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: C: It has been discussed before, and as with so many things we decided that it is a good idea but that it would take a lot of work... so it withered and died. This would be easy to do for :template:Former F1 driver, and we could make it hidden until the field was filled. For :template:F1 driver we already have the "latest race" field, so it would only need eight additional updates for each GP weekend, the points field could be named "Career points" or somesuch. 06:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Action: I have actually gone ahead and made the change to :template:Former F1 driver as this is a fairly well-constrained parameter in these cases. The field is hidden until filled and so shouldn't cause any problems with pages until the data is updated for each driver. I have left :template:F1 driver as I think we need some agreement (as detailed above) about whether we need 1) just total points to date; 2) points to end of last complete season; 3) points to end of last season and this season's current tally; 4) total and current season points; 5) etc etc etc.... Pyrope 07:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've changed McLaren and Renault back to 2006 as well, so now they're all consistent. -- DH85868993 02:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible changes to F1 driver infoboxes 

message: Does anyone know any reason why, in the 1993 F1 race reports, the Saubers are listed as just "Sauber", rather than "Sauber-Ilmor" (which is how they appear in 1993 Formula One season) ? I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something before going to the effort of updating the race reports. -- DH85868993 14:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The engines were designed and built by Ilmor, but were badged up as Sauber, in the same way that Ilmor engines were badged as Mercedes before the Germans bought the company out. So the official records list the cars as just Sauber. Pyrope 14:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Pyrope. I thought it might have been something like that. I've updated 1993 Formula One season and JJ Lehto accordingly. DH85868993 23:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1993 Sauber engine naming 

message: It might be one of the slightest possible things, but I've just noticed a bit of inconsistency in McLaren car article namings. Some have: McLaren MP4 / followed by the car number as the article name, while some have MP4 - as their name. Is there any proper one to use, or does it not really matter?
A few days ago, I created a article on the McLaren MP4-20 article, only to reliase it already had article, but under the McLaren MP4/20 name, which is very confusing.
Is it / or - ?! Davnel03 12:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was "/" from MP4/1 to MP4/11, then Ron decided to change it to "-" for MP4-12 onwards. DH85868993 13:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by the McLaren website I make the first hyphenated car the MP4-16. Although even McLaren seem to be fairly flexible about which to use, and various parts show both MP4/5 and MP4-5 in use, as well as MP4/15 and MP4-15. Official entry lists make the change at about the MP-14, although even here I still find the MP4/14 on the entry list, while MP4-14 is only given in the results classification. Some independent sites make a change, others stick to "/" right up to the present car. For aesthetic reasons I prefer the / use, but then I'm a kid of the '80s and that just looks more "McLaren" to me, evoking heady days of the MP4/4. Pyrope 16:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  McLaren MP4'''''/''''' or McLaren MP4'''''-'''''  ? 

message: Just letting you know that I've decided to nominate both Forti and Toyota as GA-Candidates. I feel that both articles are at GA standard, and with one or two tweaks, they would definitely get GA status. Davnel03 09:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Forti]] and [[Toyota F1|Toyota]] 

message: Some idiot has gone and suggested that Schumacher's article should be split into different articles. Leave your opinions here. Davnel03 13:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Michael Schumacher]] > Split 

message: A while back, we had a discussion about subcategories of :Category:Formula One cars. The consensus at the time was that we probably only needed subcategories for significant constructors and/or those with numerous car articles. I notice that Davnel03 has recently created new subcategories for Ligier, Larrousse, Honda, Hesketh, Forti and Eagle, at least one of which has been questioned. Perhaps it's time to reopen the discussion. -- DH85868993 00:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented about this on the category talk. It's slightly ridiculous I feel. Forti had TWO cars. A separate category is not required. mattbuck 00:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know about the discussion a while back, sorry about that, but when I looked at the main category first time (:Category:Formula One cars, I didn't know whether they should of been like that, hence the reason why I put them in seperate categories. I admit, it might be ridiculous to have teams that were only in F1 one or two years, but for other (Honda etc.) there should be categories, even if only three or four cars have articles on Wikipedia. Davnel03 10:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subcategories of Category:Formula One cars (revisited) 

message: I recently discovered F1 test drivers and F1 test drivers in 2007. I think we almost certainly don't need both articles. I question whether we actually need either article, since the information also/already exists in 2007 Formula One season. Thoughts? -- DH85868993 16:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we don't need these articles because they are just a duplicate of information from the 2007 Formula One Season article. Kingjamie 16:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No way do we need these articles since the info exists in other articles. Delete 110%! Davnel03 16:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've proposed both articles for deletion. -- DH85868993 01:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note, I agree with the deletion of both the articles. AlexJ 09:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're gone. -- DH85868993 06:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 test drivers 

message: Hi. I just made a couple of adjustments to the template to allow the name and nationality to be hidden where multiple templates are used. As things were, the formatting forced the F1 template to be the top one, even where F1 was the minor part of a driver's career. One consequence is that the defailt value for the name field had to be removed. I'll be skimming through articles to spot where this may have been used (very few), but even where the default value may have been used all that will have happened is that the name will be hidden, and no disfiguring errors will be seen. One question remains to be sorted though:
The subtitle World Championship Career is simply inadequate. We must always assume zero prior knowlege from our readers, and this title begs the question... World Championship of what? Other common boxes use Motorcycle Grand Prix Career and 24 Hours of Le Mans Career and so are a little more descriptive. I know we discussed the suitability of the former Formula One Career title before, but I'm not sure we resolved it to best advantage. I think the best option would be to adjust it to Formula 1 World Championship Career. I know that this isn't technically accurate in all cases, but it covers what most of the world understands by the term. If anyone else has a neater summary then please post your suggestions and thoughts here. Pyrope 08:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're exactly right, Pyrope. I wondered how long "World Championship career" would last when I wrote it. I agree that "Formula 1 World Championship career" isn't exactly accurate in all cases, but I think it's the best compromise. Personally, I'd probably actually prefer "Formula One World Championship career" (I've tested it and it fits without causing line wrap). -- DH85868993 09:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also prefer the full wording, as you surmised I only used the 1 as I reckoned it would wrap. But if it doesn't, then no worries! Pyrope 09:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: p.s. You can see the boxes at Richard Attwood or Mike Hailwood to see how they combine with other motorsport projects. Pyrope 13:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good, and I agree with the new Formula One World Championship Career wording. AlexJ 14:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I propose the same change be made to template:F1 driver, template:F1 team, template:Former F1 team, template:F1 constructor and template:Former F1 constructor. -- DH85868993 22:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any dissent, they've all been updated. DH85868993 12:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:Former F1 driver]] 

message: Of the contemporary "big 3" - Ferrari, McLaren and Renault, the referencing of these articles is dire. Now since I'm bringing this up I'm open to "well why don't you fix it then?" That would be fair. However I'm just bringing it up to see if I can get some help referencing them. Mark83 20:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but so are many other articles. All the regulars of the Wikiproject are trying their best to get F1 related article up to standard, we haven't got round to those three yet. I'd be quite happy to lend a hand, suggest we try McLaren first as it seems a fairly good article and I'd like to get it up to GA/FA status at some point. AlexJ 22:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I would counter that the Ferrari and Renault F1 articles are equally sound. However I have no problem with picking McLaren as our first effort for GA status (at least). Mark83 23:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a reference in the McLaren wikipedia article to an piece in the December 1997 issue of F1 Racing magazine, which says that the only way for McLaren to be any stronger was if they recruited Michael Schumacher. If by chance anyone has this issue of F1 Racing, could you try and find the article title, page number and author if possible. Thanks, AlexJ 21:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Darn it, I threw all of mine out not long ago! Readro 22:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing of team articles 

message: With the topic above in mind - why have we a "Portal improvement drive" and another at the top of Portal:Formula One? And would a header not be a good idea, e.g. Template:Current Cinema COTW Mark83 12:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean, we have a monthly improvement drive article which is listed at the top of Portal:Formula One and at Portal_talk:Formula_One/Management_of_selected_articles. AlexJ 13:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. So Tyrrell Racing in the tasks was just not updated?  Sorry for the trouble. Mark83 14:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've created Template:Current F1 COTW. Mark83 14:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement drive(s) 

message: Following discussion on the Porsche talk page, the information in the "Auto racing" section of the Porsche article has been split out as a separate article called Porsche in motorsport. But rather than changing all the F1-related instances of "Porsche" which currently link to Porsche to link to Porsche in motorsport instead, I propose the creation of a further article: Porsche F1 (initially a redirect to Porsche in motorsport), and linking the F1-related instances of "Porsche" to that (similar to the way in which all F1-related instances of "Alfa Romeo" link to Alfa Romeo (Formula One)). My rationale is that if the place where Porsche's F1 involvement is described ever changes (e.g. in case Porsche in motorsport gets too big and is split into separate articles) then we only have to update Porsche F1, rather than updating all the links. Thoughts? DH85868993 14:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support your idea. John Anderson 20:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the theory, but could we have a better title please? How about, following a developing convention, Porsche in Formula One? The title needs to be a bit more discursive where you are discussing a concept rather than a single entity. Pyrope 09:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Porsche in Formula One is fine with me. -- DH85868993 09:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Porsche in Formula One created and linked. Thanks for your input. -- DH85868993 12:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porsche in motorsport 

message: A couple of issues/questions related to summary tables for races which haven’t been F1/WDC events throughout their entire history:
1. Many/most "race" articles (e.g. Australian Grand Prix, German Grand Prix, etc) contain a table of past winners. Most of these tables highlight years where the race wasn’t part of the WDC with a pink background and European Championship events with a cream background. But note that this doesn't always give you the complete picture, e.g. it doesn't tell you that the 1952 Monaco Grand Prix was run for sports cars. What do people think of the idea of adding an extra column (or two) to these tables specifying the formula to which the race was held (e.g. "Formula 1", "sports cars", "Formula Libre", etc) and championship status? If there’s support for the general idea, then we can discuss specifics such as:
*one column or two
*what to label the columns
*allowed values in columns (e.g. "F1" or "Formula One", etc) and whether to wikilink them
*whether to retain the pink and cream backgrounds
*whether to add the new column(s) to races which have always been F1+WDC (e.g. Bahrain Grand Prix)
2. Some of the "race" articles contain "Multiple wins (drivers)" and "Multiple wins (constructor)" tables. On the Australian Grand Prix talk page, User:GK1 has asked whether these tables should only include F1 events. My own personal view is that all wins should be counted, regardless of formula or championship status. But I’d be interested in the views of others.
DH85868993 07:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we might have to rethink the colours - Las Vegas Grand Prix looks really confusing at first sight. I support the idea of an extra column for the formula. Maybe that way we could get rid of the colours in the table. Readro 17:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the colours are a good idea, let's keep them. The category could perhaps be better noted with a foot note? John Anderson 06:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Footnotes for categories would work well where there haven't been many changes, but where there have been lots (some of the American races) it could get very confusing! 4u1e 06:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary tables for races which haven't always been F1/WDC 

message: Hi, as you may of noticed the Australia and Malaysia look like proper race reports, as I strived to update it as soon as possible straight after each session was over. I thought I'd let somebody else do it for the Bahrain round (after all seeing a list of results tell you nothing). So guess what? When I come online, I see absolutely nothing! What is it? I'm stupid or something?! Ain't race reports meant to be updated. Or can't anybody be bothered to put in a simple description of what happened using a few refs (like what I did after Aussie + Malaysian practices). Cos, to tell you the truth, why should I waste my time, when other people can't be asked. You look on the history page of these articles. Yes, most of the edits are mine, not yours. A simple description doesn't take you long, get a source (ITV F1) and your done. Not like climbing up the Eiffel Mountain is it? Get your act together, and edit the damn page, I quit. Davnel03 17:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever happened to Wikipedia:Assume good faith? There's no obligation for anyone to do anything at all. If you feel it's a waste of your time, then don't edit the pages! I edit because I enjoy it - if it ever became a chore I would stop doing it. It's great that you've contributed some race reports, but no one said you had to. One tip - flaming the entire WikiProject is not going to win you any friends. Readro 17:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Readro says, and as I think I've said several times before: We all do what we want. We do appreciate the work you have done on the first two races, but if you're not getting any pleasure out of it any more, then I suggest you don't do it. Someone else will, eventually. 4u1e 18:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually I had an idea to improve the Race Reports to GA standards, I would do them now, but I prefer waiting about 5 races to get a picture of how the race in question has shaped the championship. That and the fact we need to give people (mostly on Flickr) some time to upload images, that are hopefully on the appropriate CC license. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skully Collins (talk • contribs) 22:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, am I missing something, or has the 2007 Bahrain Grand Prix not happened yet? How can a race report be written on a race that hasn't been run? AlexJ 00:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Davnel was suggesting that the race report (articles) could/should be updated following each practice session. -- DH85868993 04:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 Race Reports 

message: I don't even know how I found this article (I think while searching for the Bahrain GP), but it looks way speculative and possibly unnecessary.
Recently articles like the 2008 Green Bay Packers (football team) went through an AFD, and I suspect this 2010 article might be too far out to justify. (The 2009 article has some useful data in it, for comparison).
Consensus? Guroadrunner 20:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definately completely speculative and a bit too far out.  There's no real hard evidence of anything happening in 2010 to warrent an article yet. The359 21:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Nothing but speculation in the article. Does not warrant an article. Readro 21:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a reference for the addition of the Korean Grand Prix to the F1 schedule, so it's no longer "nothing but speculation" :-) I don't see much point in deleting an article which will almost certainly need to be recreated within, say, 6 months. Does anyone know of a reference for the article's main paragraph ("According to Max Mosley and the recently-approved agreement between the FIA and GPMA...")? -- DH85868993 03:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2010 Formula One season]] 

message: Any info re: German GP for 2007 now needs to point to the European Grand Prix banner.  http://www.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/070414112451.shtml  Davesmith33 10:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just wondering whether we should wait a little while for "confirmation" of this before making too many chnages - I'd hate to change all those links just to have to change them all back... DH85868993 10:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Interestingly, it's on the FIA website as the European Grand Prix and on f1.com as the European Grand Prix. It just seems odd that no one else has reported it. Readro 12:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's "confirmed" enough for me! DH85868993 12:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or is it just the website designers being lazy and copying the code from last years GP held at the Nurburgring which was titled the Euro GP. The press release by the FIA announcing the calendar shows it as the German Grand Prix : http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2007/February/140207-02.html AlexJ 13:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Negative on the copying of last years code as it was originally down as the European GP if you remember []  It was then edited to the German GP and has now been changed back again in the last few days on both fia.com and f1.com so that's pretty much confirmed I think.  Also, http://www.nuerburgring.de/ has it now as the Großer Preis von Europa. Davesmith33 13:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah right, my mistake I didn't read the first link. Yeah agree with a move to 2007 European Grand Prix in that case. AlexJ 14:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, it is the German Grand Prix. Why should they change it? fia.com has it as Germany. John Anderson 06:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, fia.com has it as Europe, and I provided a link for verification. Readro 14:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the redirects last night. Kingjamie 14:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: According to the press release AlexJ contributed, it is Germany. There has been no press release since that address the matter of changing the names, hence I think the reference to Europe is a mistake. The German GP has a much longer tradition than the European, so I can't understand why it would be European. The only reason for the use of "European" before was to be able to host two races in Germany (and before that two races in the UK). John Anderson 15:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both f1.com and fia.com have it as the Grand Prix of Europe and I'm sure they know what they're doing.  All of the information on both these official sites has been changed to Europe so as long as that is the case, surely the same info should be here? Davesmith33 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, cite a source explicitly saying the German GP has changed names to European GP, then I'll believe it. John Anderson 21:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John, the original F1 Live article would seem to show the GP has changed names, so far the FIA and FOM websites show it as European, as does the BBC at http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/calendar/default.stm and German F1 broadcaster RTL at http://sport.rtl.de/formel-1/formel1_71595.php - it does seem strange there's been no official press release from the FIA though. AlexJ 23:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Germany GP for 2007, European back in place 

message: When I updated the 2007 F1 car articles following the 2007 Malaysian GP, I added a note under the results tables indicating that the points total and championship position are "progress scores" following the Malaysian Grand Prix. Would people like to see the same thing in the 2007 driver and team articles, or is it self-evident? (I'm even happy to remove the note from the car articles if that's the concensus). -- DH85868993 12:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think something to indicate how up-to-date points and other stats for current teams,drivers,cars etc. is needed. Perhaps we could have something like they do on the Rugby player infobox (see Gareth Thomas (rugby player) for example) but accurate as of a certain GP rather than a calendar date. AlexJ 13:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress scores 

message: At Talk:List of international auto racing colors, the question has come up wether there were ever any cars from New Zealand painted black in the days of national racing colors. Please give your input at the page. John Anderson 07:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racing color for New Zealand? 

message: If a driver does not finish a race due to retirement but is classified with a position by the FIA, how should this be shown in the results tables? 
A case is Anthony Davidson in  2007 Bahrain Grand Prix . FIA website shows him a DNF but classified in 16th--> FIA results. My preferred option to to show him as finishing in 16th. MonkeyMumford 08:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't use DNF. If they retired without classification we use "Ret", if they are classified then they get their classification spot. Drivers who finish but aren't classified get "NC". The race reprt tables are large enough that more information can be recorded: the classification is shown, but his lap numbers and finishing time summary shows that he completed only 51 laps and suffered engine failure. Pyrope 09:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drivers Classified Position and DNF - how to record 

message: I thought I'd share this with all of you because I've found a great source that I hadn't heard of before. Project 009900 is part of f1-images.de and contains extensive data on all the non-championship F1 races from 1946 onwards. It's a German website but is very very easy to navigate. You won't be disappointed with this site, I assure you! Readro 12:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blimey, that is impressive, thanks for the tip off. Just one quick caveat: from the results that I have (briefly!) cross referenced with other sites/publications, the Project 009900 data appears to have been database derived. It therefore suffers a little from that most common of database problems: shoehorning. By that I mean that while the informaion is correct in a broad sense, it may not actually show what was on the entry lists at each specific event, and team names etc. have been reduced to generalisms. As long as you bear that in mind it could prove very useful! Pyrope 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another source of non-championship info, with which people may already be familiar: www.silhouet.com -- DH85868993 12:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New source for non-championship races 

message: I've been thinking a lot about whether or not to include Scuderia Ferrari in the category. I thought of it as a company division and not just a racing team like the other F1 racing teams; but I maybe wrong. I've based my idea on Renault Sport which is a company performance division and the Renault F1 which is only a racing team same asTRD and Toyota F1. If Scuderia Ferrari proved to be only a F1 racing team and not as a company division then we could take it off the category. But I think we could not include the other F1 teams because they cannot be considered a subsidiary of their parent companies. Or are they?.Jpogi 17:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see this being nominated for CfD before too long, so don't spend too much time worrying. Pyrope 07:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Official motorsport and performance division of automakers 

message: User:Annelid has recently begun a campaign of disambiguating links to Grand Prix - see Annelid's recent comtributions. I've spot-checked some of the changes and found a few of them somewhat questionable. For example, in List of British postage stamps, Annelid has disambiguated Grand Prix to British Grand Prix. If you look at the stamps (http://www.norvic-philatelics.co.uk/2007/07a-grand-prix.htm), there's noting to particularly connect them to the British Grand Prix; I think just Grand Prix motor racing or Formula One would possibly be a more suitable disambiguation. As "interested parties", perhaps others would care to cast an eye over Annelid's changes and make corrections where necessary.  -- DH85868993 22:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are to be issued the week of the British Grand Prix, so I think that one's fair enough. I've altered a few others I didn't like,though. -- Ian Dalziel 23:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation of Grand Prix 

message: I'm currently trying to achieve consistency between List of Formula One drivers and the individual driver articles (not a trivial task - assistance welcomed!). One issue I've already encountered is "dropped" WDC points. These are currently handled inconsistently across the project:
* List of Formula One drivers only shows points which counted towards the championship (e.g. 768.5 for Prost)
* List of Formula One records shows total points (e.g. 798.5 for Prost)
* championship tables in season summary articles show championship points followed by total points in parentheses, e.g. "87 (105)" for Prost in 1988.
* likewise for results tables in driver articles, e.g. Alain Prost)
* most driver article infoboxes haven't yet had the Career Points field populated, so there's no clear pattern there
I propose using the "championship points followed by total points in parentheses" format throughout. Thoughts? DH85868993 03:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently did the Wikitable for the Alain Prost vs. teammates section of his article, and changed the format from Total points (dropped points) to Dropped points (total points) as I felt the points that were used to decide the championship should be the more important. Be good to hear others opinions on this. AlexJ 09:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with AlexJ, although I prefer DH's use of the term "Championship Points". Pyrope 10:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dropped points 

message: I notice that template:Former F1 driver has recently been updated to add fields for the British F1 championship. Another approach would have been to have develop a separate infobox template for the British F1 stats. It probably doesn't matter much either way, unless we think we are likely to add stats for other F1 championships (e.g. South African?) in the future, in which case we should probably decide now (i.e. before too many driver articles have been updated) which is the better way to go. Thoughts? DH85868993 03:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this would best be hived off into a separate tamplate, how about Template:UK F1 series driver?. After all, some drivers participated in the British series and not the WC. Also, if we were to maintain the pattern then why not build all the possible driver twmplates into one? That could get very confusing in the long run. Pyrope 10:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and why can't I type the word template? Pyrope 10:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've taken that into account - take Guido Daccò for example. I just thought it looked neater to tag it onto the bottom of the existing infobox. Having infoboxes stack up looks messy in my opinion and seeing as the new fields are normally hidden, I didn't think it was a problem to do it this way. I tried a separate infobox and it looked a mess. Personally, I don't see a problem. The template is for their F1 career, thus it gives a more accurate picture if you display all of their F1 racing. F1 is not exclusively the world championship. Readro 10:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your last point is certainly valid, as I have been arguing for some time. However, not all motorsport is F1, and we certainly aren't advocating building one uber-template for all drivers ever to sit behind the wheel of a racing car. I personally think that the infobox borders nicely delineate the separate record sections, and as they are all unformly formatted they look quite smart (see Martin Brundle for instance). The problem comes when trying to provide a pro forma for easy field identification. If we go down this route (WC, British, SA etc all in one form) then the requsite pro forma will be huge, and quite tricky to navigate as some fields will have to be duplicated, triplicated etc for each series. Pyrope 11:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concerns, but I'm not sure I agree. Personally, I think while the infobox shouldn't contain everything the driver has ever done, the infobox is an F1 infobox and should take account of all F1 entries. Regarding the amount of fields - for the most part nothing has changed. If you look at the template page you can see I've added an optional list of fields to add for British F1 Series drivers. For most cases the standard pro forma will be fine as the other fields will be hidden. Also, whoever is editing the page will have the same amount of fields to fill out whether it is in one infobox or two. Readro 13:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of British F1 fields to template:Former F1 driver 

message: I notice the recent creation of:
*List of Formula One World Drivers' Runners-up and List of Formula One World Constructors' Runners-up. I wonder whether this information is best presented as separate articles, or whether it could somehow be merged into List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions and List of Formula One World Constructors' Champions?
*List of Formula One constructors by record. I suggest this information be merged into List of Formula One records.
Thoughts? -- DH85868993 23:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure we need a list of runners up. When does it stop? Would a list of third place finishers be OK? In my opinion, only a list of champions has any merit. The other list should be merged into List of Formula One records as suggested. Readro 00:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently-created lists 

message: We're now have several driver articles with multiple infoboxes. Would anyone else like to see all the driver infoboxes the same width, so that they "stack neatly" - contrast Olivier Gendebien with Julian Bailey. Current infobox widths are:
* 25 em: F1 driver, A1GP driver, V8 Supercar driver, WRC driver
* 24 em: Former F1 driver, Former Champ Car driver, Former F3 driver
* 22 em: BTCC driver, BTCC alumnus, DTM driver Junior series driver, Pickup Truck driver, Infobox racing driver
* 270px (which is close to 24em): all the NASCAR driver templates
If we would like to have them all the same width, I'd recommend 24 em as a good compromise. BTW, I realise this discussion should probably be on WP:MOTOR, but this talk page is more active. DH85868993 08:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a good idea, but will obviously have to be negotiated with the relevant wikiprojects. I'd also go with 24 em. I think we can change the F1 driver template without too much discussion, but I would make a couple of extra tweaks at the same time. These would be to reduce the width of the field headings by replacing "World Championships" with simply "Championships", and "2007 Championship position" with "2007 position". These would allow the first and last race fields to be shown without wrapping, making the box format clearer and reducing its page length. As the box is already headed "World Championship Career" the reduction in the text would lose nothing in meaning. Pyrope 13:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pyrope, I've copied your comment (omitting the F1-template-specific stuff) to the main discussion at WP:MOTOR. I hope that's OK. BTW, I support your proposed amendments to the F1 driver template. DH85868993 14:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Following broad support at WP:MOTOR, all motorsport people infoboxes have now been changed to a standard width of 24em. -- DH85868993 12:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Driver infobox widths 

message: So I found this: Formula One Supporters Association. Does anyone want to improve it, or make the call whether it is notable. (If it's not notable, it should go through an AFD). Guroadrunner 15:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's notable. Seems to be just another fan club. Readro 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Action: The AFD to delete this article is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Formula_One_Supporters_Association -- Guroadrunner 10:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Formula One Supporters Association]] 

message: Following this earlier discussion, I think I now understand Mercedes' (somewhat convoluted) latter-day F1 involvement. With respect to the wikilinking of F1-related instances of "Mercedes(-Benz)", I think there are two ways we can go:
* we could link them to Mercedes-Benz motorsport, Ilmor, Mercedes-Ilmor or Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines as appropriate (i.e. link 1950s references to Mercedes-Benz motorsport, link to Ilmor from 1995-2001, Mercedes-Ilmor from 2002-2004 and Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines from 2005 onwards)
OR (my preference):
* we could create a new article called Mercedes-Benz in Formula One (in the style of Alfa Romeo in Formula One and Porsche in Formula One) which explains the whole story (with appropriate links to Mercedes-Benz motorsport, Ilmor, Mercedes-Ilmor and Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines) and link all F1-related instances of "Mercedes(-Benz)" to the new article.
Thoughts? -- DH85868993 00:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your second idea is a good one. I second it. John Anderson 02:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed that in the past few days, a few F1-related instances of "Mercedes" have been changed to link to Mercedes-Benz in motorsport rather than Mercedes-Benz. So, I thought it would be worthwhile reviving this discussion, in the interests of possibly avoiding some future rework. Note that since the above discussion, we also now have Lancia in Formula One. DH85868993 02:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercedes-Benz in Formula One 

message: Hi, I came across  this picture from the 1998 British Grand Prix article. While the image caption in the British GP article says it's Mika Hakkinen and Schumacher battling for the lead (also as the image title), the body of the image classes it as David Coulthard! Zooming in on the picture, shows the picture as it being Coulthard not Hakkinen. Am I right?Neldav 20:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certain it's Coulthard.  The helmet is overexposed and blurred somewhat, but it is possible to see the Scottish flag design.  In addition, Coulthard and Schumacher battled for second place early in the race, whilst there was never any close racing between MS and Hakkinen.--Diniz 20:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Coulthard, but you'd be hard pressed to prove it one way or the other! 4u1e 17:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try. ;)  The official end-of-season review (VHS) shows this exact move, but I can't find a clip on youtube.  Looking at the lap chart, Coulthard passes Schumacher for second place on lap 5, with the order behind them as Alesi, Villeneuve, Frentzen, Hill and Irvine (who are also visible in the photo).  Remember that Schumacher and Hakkinen never battled for position; Schumacher passed Hakkinen later on when the latter ran wide and across the grass at Becketts after the SC period.--Diniz 18:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually hard to tell, and we'd need someone who remembers the race well (seemingly like Diniz to get proper confirmation. You see, both Hakkinen's and Coulthard's helmets were blue and white/silver, but Coulthard's is recognized as being in the form of a Scottish-flag cross. The blue on his helmet was darkened when he joined Red Bull Racing. But even on zooming in on the image, it is hard to tell. Lradrama 12:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked at the race results too, and Hakkinen actually qualified on the same row as Schumacher and finished 22 seconds behind him. Coulthard qualified 4th and spun off mid-race. Does that help, knowing that Hakkinen was actually in a better position to be in the position in this picture? The Ferrari was actually faster and the McLaren started infront, which means this could be Schumacher passing Hakkinen around the outside? Again, the lack of a clear image so we can't see the helmet as good (see above comment) is the flaw here. Lradrama 12:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Coulthard. Coulthard has vertical white stripes on his helmet whereas Hakkinen's were horizontal. Readro 12:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I suppose it is. Coulthard's come down to form the Scottish flag don't they? Alright, we'll say it's him. Lradrama 12:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I've just checked the lap chart. Coulthard passed Schumacher on lap 4 while Alesi was running fourth immediately behind them followed by Villeneuve and Frentzen, which is the exact order seen in the picture. Readro 12:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: One other thing I've just remembered - in the 1998 season you could distinguish between the two McLarens in the non-tobacco races by the logos on the front wing - Coulthard's were that orangey colour and Hakkinen's were black. Readro 12:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Top research. Well done! Mystery solved then. This is a picture of David Coulthard passing Michael Schumacher in the 1998 British GP with Jean Alesi running behind. Lradrama 12:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Picture? 

message: Several race report articles, e.g. 2004 Bahrain Grand Prix, have recently had a (points) "Standings After Grand Prix" section added. Do we think this is useful/desirable information to include in the race report articles? I ask because in many cases, when these sections are added, the constructor links are poorly formed. I'm happy to fix the links if we think the information is useful, but would rather not invest the effort if it's just going to be deleted later anyway. DH85868993 03:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One benefit I can see is that a reader can see how the championships stood at that point and how things changed (or not) by the end of the season. The only other way to figure this out is to go to the season summary and do the maths. Is that a good enough reason to keep the sections? Mark83 03:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't see them being introduced to any of this years GA's and getting away with it, (2007 Australian Grand Prix, 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix, and 2007 Canadian Grand Prix), so I don't think that they should be introduced into the newer race reports. Should this information be important, I think it would be a lot better in prose. T. Moitie [talk] 15:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True - major changes in fortune, e.g. top few drivers changing WDC position/drawing level etc. is probably deep enough and that can be written in prose. Mark83 15:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kill it. It's not necessary beyond the top 3. Constructors not necessary.  What would be better would be to make a visual chart with all of the standings positions and apply that to the page. It would depict the movement over the season of how many points they have. Guroadrunner 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standings after Grand Prix 

message: Just thought I'd let you guys know that both 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix and 2007 Canadian Grand Prix have been nominated as Featured Article Candidates. The discussions are here and here.
Another thing. About a month ago, after one of my blocks was rejected, using my IP address, I vandalised several WP:F1 guys articles, along with this talkpage, and insulted Phill. I sincerly apologise for my actions then, and will try and keep my temper under control in future. Phil, and the other WP:F1 guys I apologise also for the personal insults I made about you. Thank you.  Davnel03 15:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a similar note, I've put 2007 British Grand Prix up for a peer review. I'd like to invite anybody to come along and offer some advice at Wikipedia:Peer review/2007 British Grand Prix/archive1. Cheers T. Moitie [talk] 18:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 articles up for FA status and an apology 

message: In Wikipedia obviously, not in real life!
The Future of Formula One article has been nominated for deletion by user:Kingboyk on the basis that "Unencyclopedic and mostly original research. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article.".
I've never been terribly at ease with this article; it requires constant updating and is prone to OR (although I don't agree that it is entirely unencyclopedic). If we want to keep the article we need to do something about it in the next four days (or ask for a stay of execution, I suppose...). Cheers. 4u1e 13:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, given that Kingboyk didn't (as far as I know) tell anyone that he had nominated the article, I think it would be reasonable to ask for the five days to start from now, at the very least. Cheers. 4u1e 13:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  With a PROD, you don't need to tell anyone; that's just a courtesy thing. Guroadrunner 13:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd still argue that if you prod a longstanding, lengthy and fairly frequently edited article without informing the project that it 'belongs' to, you run every risk of deleting it before anyone even knows you've put the tag on! 4u1e 14:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair point. Most of the prods I have done are for orphan articles, for nonsense articles or other things that were created and left untouched. Guroadrunner 14:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Update - challenged the prod and removed notice from page. As a challenged prod, the next step is to make it an AFD. Guroadrunner 22:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future of Formula One up for deletion 

message: Is it not worth having general articles like Formula One World Driver's Championship and Formula One World Constructor's Championship? Christopher Connor 17:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're included in the general Formula One article. If we start splitting things up even more, it would get confusing I think. Lradrama 17:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those articles basically exist as List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions and List of Formula One World Constructors' Champions.AlexJ 00:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just redirect the suggested headlines to those articles then. I'll fix that right away. John Anderson 15:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. John Anderson 15:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New articles 

message: Do people think it would be useful to have a TOC for the archive pages? (I find that I usually can't be bothered searching through all 8 pages to see whether something has already been discussed). I'm happy to generate the TOC, but I won't invest the effort if people don't think it would be useful. -- DH85868993 02:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive TOC 

message: For restarted races, there is some disagreement over whether the result for drivers who didn't take the restart should be "DNS" or "Retired". I'd like to establish an agreed position within the project, in the hope of avoiding discussions like that currently in progress on Michael Schumacher's talk page. I've established a table of all the restarted WDC races (that I could think of!) and recorded the position taken by a few of the major online results sources. It seems as though there's general agreement over the 1976 German, 1978 Italian, 1982 Canadian and 1987 Austrian events, so the only ones we need discuss are the 1973 British, 1998 Belgian, 1999 British and 2005 United States GPs (I realise the 2005 US GP wasn't restarted, but there is still some disagreement over whether the Michelin runners Retired or DNSed). The table was compiled from memory, so feel free to add any races I've missed.  DH85868993 11:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, if a competitor took the original start then it should be "Retired". If a competitor did not take the original start then it should be "DNS". Putting DNS if a competitor took a start is a bit misleading I think. Readro 14:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem here is the various positions are opinions. Does anybody know the FIA or FOA/FOM position? And if they do surely that should be our policy too. Mark83 00:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, www.formula1.com claims to be the "Official Formula 1 Website", so I guess that (for past races), their position is the "official" one. I'd be comfortable for Wikipedia to maintain consistency with www.formula1.com on this issue. I'm also in favour of adding notes to results tables ("car failed on the formation lap", "took part in the first start but not the restart", etc). DH85868993 02:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re:200 US GP. I don't care what the FIA might be saying to preserve their reputation, the Michelin runner were all DNS. To be present at the start of a race you have to be on the grid (or starting from the pits) when the lights change (or flag drops, in years gone by). They weren't. Pyrope 09:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To clarify, I was proposing that on this issue (i.e. DNS or Ret for restarted races (plus the 2005 US GP)), Wikipedia should maintain consistency with www.formula1.com on a race-by-race (even result-by-result) basis, even though www.formula1.com itself doesn't seem to have a consistent "policy". Note that I'm not suggesting blanket consistency with www.formula1.com, since the site definitely contains errors. DH85868993 06:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the 2005 USGP should be recorded as a DNS for all the Michelin runners. Formula1.com's rules & regs section says "Once all cars have safely taken up their grid positions at the end of the formation lap five red lights will appear in sequence at one-second intervals. These red lights are then extinguished to signal the start of the race." That seems to say quite clearly if they weren't competing at the time the red lights were extinguished or at any time after the lights went out but before the race finished, then they didn't start the race. The race doesn't start on the formation lap. AlexJ 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. USGP 2005 was a DNS for all Michelin runners as they didn't take the start. Readro 11:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restarted races 

message: Do we want to add "Front row starts", "Laps raced" "km raced", "Races Led" "Laps led" and/or "km led" (or anything else) into the F1 driver infoboxes? As part of my quest to attain consistency between List of Formula One drivers and the individual driver articles, I'm updating the infobox of pretty much every F1 driver article, so if there extra fields we want to add, now would probably be a good/convenient time to do it. DH85868993 15:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, no, no and no. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, not an exhaustive database of all F1 info. If you are a stats nerd then you probably aren't looking to Wikipedia anyway. We should be concentrating on writing good, readable, informative and interesting articles, not compiling a complete career summary for every driver ever. The fields you suggest add very little to a driver's history for all except dedicated F1 fans, and arguably they aren't who we should be thinking of first when we edit. For those who are just after entertaining and informative articles, that kind of information just serves to obscure rather than illuminate. If a driver holds some interesting record in those regards (e.g. driver to have led most laps without ultimately winning a Grand Prix) it should go as a note in the text. I can see that a driver's best finish might be a good note for an infobox (but made using  tags), but too many will just clutter and confuse. Pole position starts are, honestly, a minor part of a driver's record, so a best start note is even less important. I think if you asked any driver whether they would prefer a win or ten pole positions, they would take the win every time.  Pyrope 09:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More potential fields for F1 driver infoboxes 

message: As many will know, in driver/constructor career summary tables, pole positions are indicated by highlighting the race in bold and fastest laps are indicated using italics, with a note above the table explaining what the bolding and italics mean. But I'm wondering what we should do in the case where the driver/constructor has scored no pole positions and/or fastest laps - should we remove the note (because it's "irrelevant"), or should we leave the note there, to highlight the fact that no pole positions/fastest laps were achieved (noting that this information can also be gleaned from the infobox)? DH85868993 17:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have generally been removing notes that aren't applicable (although I probably missed a couple!). I think they only serve to confuse. Pyrope 09:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Driver/constructor summary table notes 

message: What do people think of the idea of merging Frank Williams Racing Cars ("FWRC") and WilliamsF1? I'm aware that the two are distinct entities, and I'm familiar with their respective histories. But having them as separate articles seems inconsistent with the way we've handled Honda F1 and Renault F1, where we've described the exploits of quite disparate organisations in the same article. (I would suggest that FWRC and WGPE/WilliamsF1 are more closely related than the Renault team of the 70s/80s and today's Renault-nee-Benetton, or the Honda team of the 60s and today's Honda-nee-BAR.) Further, I think the separation of the results tables might prove confusing to the casual browser. I can imagine someone viewing  WilliamsF1 Grand Prix results asking themselves "Why do the model numbers start at FW06? What happened to FW01 to FW05?" I'm aware that the WilliamsF1 article is already quite large, and that merging in the content of the FWRC article would make it even larger (although a small amount of the existing text could be removed).
An alternate approach would be to leave FWRC and WilliamsF1 as separate articles, but to combine the results tables into a single article (with clear delineation between the two teams, as is done in Renault F1).
Note that I'm not passionate about seeing the articles merged, but I do think it makes sense to combine at least the results tables.
Thoughts? DH85868993 13:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there already a page giving the full results? 4u1e 14:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, Frank Williams Racing Cars contains the results from 1975 and 1976 and WilliamsF1 Grand Prix results contains the results from 1977 onwards. -- DH85868993 22:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree about merging the results or articles, they're quite separate entities, with FWRC going on to become Walter Wolf Racing (why not merge it with that! ;-)) and then merging with Fittipaldi Automotive (or that :D)! The only connection is the Frank Williams owned them both, and some personnel (Patrick Head at least, but I'm not sure about anyone else) moved from one to the other. I think any confusion can be addressed with an explanatory note. What do others think? 4u1e 17:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am of course amenable to persuasion! To be fair, I can't find another source that does it the way we do! It just makes no sense to me (yeah, that's right, we're the only ones in step...) 4u1e 22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of Williams articles? 

message: There's a corner at the Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari, that currently is called in the circuit map Variante Alta but I thought was called the Variante Alfa. Which is it? An AtlasF1 article  and the source I used to create the 1994 circuit layout map, the manual for Geoff Crammonds' F1GP video game (surprisingly detailed for early 90's pre-web F1 info), say Alfa, many other sources including the F1 website  say Alta. Wikipedia seems to be mixed with more Alta then Alfa. Your thoughts please. AlexJ 18:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I remember of SpeedTV's commentary, they've always refered to it as Variante Alta, even David Hobbs. The359 19:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always considered it to be Alta, as "Alta" means high, and "Alfa" means alpha/first.  The chicane is at the highest point of the circuit, and isn't the first corner.  It also goes well with the next sequence of corners, the "Variante Bassa" (low).  The Great Encyclopedia of Formula 1 has it as Alta, and I'm sure that's what the commentators call it.  However, the 1995 AUTOCOURSE annual (which I happen to have with me) has it as Alfa, so there's definitely a sense of ambiguity.  I would still go with Variante Alta, though.--Diniz 19:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I always believed that I heard Variante Alta. For what it's worth, the 2004 Autocourse has Alta not Alfa. 4u1e 19:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would Variante Alta not go better with Variante Bassa (which I'm guessing means low) as well? 4u1e 19:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The idea of having links to the F1 portal in the articles came up in a peer review for Brabham (I think) ages ago - it was a suggestion from a reviewer who knew nothing about the topic and thought it was useful as a way in to it. I think they were probably right, but hadn't felt strongly enough about it to push for a general standard. If you think it hurts the article then go ahead and take it out, although I can't see it does any harm, and I'm not sure how else anyone will find the portal! 4u1e 20:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As you may know, Imola '94 is going on the front page tommorrow. Could someone have a quick look over it, and check that no mistakes have crept into it over the time between it becoming featured and now. Thanks, AlexJ 20:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked the succession box race reports - both the '94 Race reports before and after Imola are direct copies of grandprix.com - should I delete the race reports and just leave the infobox and classifications? AlexJ 21:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Unless you feel like writing some really quick articles! Guess those were more of Davnel's work? 4u1e 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a quick scan over the article and it looks good, I tweaked a couple of minor things. I'll try and keep an eye on it tomorrow - could be one of those topics that will bring 'em out of the woodwork. Good work! 4u1e 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Compromise - I wrote a quick article for the Pacific GP and removed the Monaco GP text (I feel too much went on during the weekend to be able to cover in a quick rewrite). AlexJ 23:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff. Someone helpfully replaced the Monaco words with a suggestion to the effect that they might have been derived from watching the race on TV (?!). I've deleted them again with a specific mention of where they were copied from. shrug. 4u1e 07:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So that was that then, 154 edits made in all, out of which I think two improvements were made (1 citation and 1 clarification, oh and my maps made in a rush at the weekend were slightly wrong :) 3 improvements). Thanks to all who helped keep a watch on it. AlexJ 00:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done. Look at it this way, at least a lot of people read it! (I know the oh so hilarious and witty vandals mostly didn't, but I also picked up a few well meaning, if wrong, changes and I suspect a majority of Wikipedia readers don't edit anyway.) I thought it survived the experience very well. 4u1e 09:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imola