Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 6

message: I want to create a similar wikiproject on the Simple English wikipedia because I find the number of articles on Formula One insufficient for that wiki. Is there anyone interested joining my mission??? Frizzle 19:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple English 

message: The article on Carlo Mario Abate states that he failed to qualify for 2 or 3 Grands Prix in 1962-63, and as far as I can find out, he never even made it as far as the Qualifying sessions in any of them, withdrawing before the meeting started.  He has a F1 infobox as well.  Are we going to include drivers who entered World Championship races but didn't actually turn a wheel in any of them?  There are quite a few, and I could easily add them to the various lists etc, but we might be struggling for notability in some cases.
Abate raced and finished well in a few F1 races, but none of them of World Championship status, so these details can go in the article, but does he merit an infobox and inclusion on the list of F1 drivers? Bretonbanquet 17:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. He doesn't really warrant that status. Adrian M. H. 17:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the list of Formula One drivers I intentionally included anyone and everyone who put themselves on the entry list for a GP. This was just for completeness and simplicity since almost every website uses different criteria for identifying F1 drivers (started a race, qualified, attempted to qualify, pre-qualified, drove in Friday practice...). All the drivers who never started a race have a note [2] in the races column of their table, if you think they should be removed I'd prefer they weren't but if you do, please just use a specific criterion for it (as this is one of the requirements to keep it as a featured list). – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to have him on the list along with all the other guys who entered a World Championship GP but didn't turn up or actually get out on to the track, it's just that there are many others who did that and aren't listed, like Piero Monteverdi, Menato Boffa, Rob Slotemaker, Gary Hocking, Syd van der Vyver, Ernie de Vos, Giancarlo Gagliardi etc etc.  Either we include them all, and there are around 30, I think - or leave them off the list.  I'm happy to add them, but other people may not be. What do you think? Bretonbanquet 00:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I must've missed your reply when I checked this. I didn't realise there are so many not listed - I tried to use as many different sources as I could when making the list but evidently they were not complete. Could you give me some kind of idea how many drivers fit the description and are not listed? Again I'd prefer to add them rather than removing others, as it seems to me to be the most clear-cut method of classifying someone into or out of the list. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 23:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have a list of names plus the races they entered.  Most were either withdrawn before the meeting started, or turned up and did not practice for whatever reason.  But they were all on entry lists.  I guess they don't feature in many sources simply because their involvement was so minimal.  They vary from guys like Geoff Duke who were very successful in other fields, to people like Ray Reed, who is incredibly difficult to find out information about.  I have 36 guys on the list, most with dates of birth / death etc as well as their entry details / car details etc.  I'm not sure all will merit an article of their own, but maybe they could still be listed?  If you want the full list, I could post it here, or on my user page, on the main list talk page, or wherever you think is best. Bretonbanquet 23:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a list page with redirect pages for each driver to me. Pyrope 12:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Carlo Mario Abate]]

message: Do we need a WikiProject Motorsport for collaboration on topics that affect all motorsport articles? I came across Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby - the purpose of which is to "maintain its children Wikiprojects: Rugby league and Rugby union as well as recognising, organising and improving the common areas between the codes." Now we have a lot more Motorsport WikiProjects covered than two and I sometimes think stuff such as the UK country discussion on the F1 Wikiproject applies across several others. I'm posting this on the F1, WRC, NASCAR American Open Wheel Racing, A1GP and IROC to get people's opinions. Your comments are welcome! Alexj2002 21:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd vote a yes. I think we need to have a global style for motorsport articles. Currently they all have different ways of doing things. There's also a question of notability. We need to discuss what is notable involving motorsport, as we can't list every Formula Ford driver in the world. Also, should motorcycle racing be included in the project? Readro 22:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in too.  I'm already a member of several relevant WikiProjects - F1, A1GP, British Motorsport and MotoGP (which I think should be included due to common interest in circuit articles for example) and I agree that there is a lot of overlap between all of these and an umbrella project would be helpful in co-ordinating style and approach, especially where drivers are in more than one series in their careers.  Justin Wilson is a good current example - he gets infoboxes for both Champ Car and F1 and they don't really sit well on top of each other.--Jsydave 11:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: WikiProject Sports Car Racing was just launched yesterday, so it too would be another branch under the umbrella of WikiProject Motorsport.  I'll post the information on WP:SCR too. The359 23:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely needed. 4u1e 20:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for a WikiProject: Motorsport?

message: I've managed to get a respectable (and believable) amount of drivers for this list. Can you guys show your support for this list of Fallen Heroes?--Skully Collins Edits 12:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a necessary article, I think. That's all the drivers though, isn't it? I can't think of any others. Thumbs up.  Bretonbanquet 22:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Formula One fatal accidents]] 

message: After looking through this Featured Topic thing, I can see that we have a rather decent amount of Featured stuff on Formula One. Of course the most important article is an FA, that is the main article along with 2 bios at FA status, 2 famous GPs at FA status and a noteworthy team at FA status. 
These articles are also backed up with GAs, with two very famous drivers reaching GA status...oh and Mark Webber as well :-P, a noteworthy car; a Famous Grand Prix and contructor are also at GA status
Of course, it makes even more statisfying reading when we go through the lists, 3 FLs, including a list of all participants in this sport, I believe no other project has done so, and a list of all previous champions for both drivers and teams and a list of fatal accidents could be the fourth FL for the project. Oh and we also have a FP...
But I don't really think that's enough for F1 to be considered a FT on Wikipedia. Because I still have a few things I want to improve:
* The core articles, History; Regulations, car, Racing and Future.
* Important bios, namely Michael Schumacher, Ayrton Senna and Juan Manuel Fangio, I chose these three because I think they'll be the most viewed bios on F1.
* Seasons, no F1 season has yet reached an FA...let's do something about this ;-).
* Grand Prix, just a few other important ones I guess, namely Adelaide '94, Jerez '97, Spa '98, Austria '02, Siverstone '03
* Lists, finially. I wouldn't mind having the list of teams at FL as well as the list of records and circuits.
Anyway, those are my suggestions... --Skully Collins Edits 07:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Formula One sure has potential to reach FT. We just have to direct our efforts to the same articles, everybody working together is easier.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 11:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would certainly like to see the Technical Regs article overhauled and expanded considerably - four brief paragraphs on chassis regs is barely scratching the surface. If I get the time over the next few days, I might start improving it. If anyone else has strong knowledge in this area, you're welcome to add a comment here or on my talk page and maybe we can collaborate on it. Adrian M. H. 14:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The full text can be found here if anyone would like some light reading! --Jsydave 14:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That'll be my primary reference source then! Adrian M. H. 14:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formula One a [[WP:FT|Featured Topic]]? 

message: Is anybody going to update race results from the 1990's as all it features is the race results itself. I have put in reports for the first few races of 1994 using my own info. You can get info of Formula One related websites to be used for Qualifying results, practice results etc...
You can also edit race reports of other websites, so the page just doesn't have the results and that's it. Can you please try and update these as soon as possible.
Here are a few web-links that have have very detailed, specific information:
*Stats F1:- Provides detailed race results, profiles, lap charts, qualifying results, engine details, pictures etc...
*Grand Prix:- Very good website to get results, profiles and reports.
I suggest you use these as many driver profiles and races need to be updated (e.g. Taki Inoue, 1995 Pacific Grand Prix are prime examples- they are very spacious and need lots more information.
If you come accross a profile that should have info, go onto these websites and try and get a bit of information. Although it is mainly old races, they are still useful.
Look at the 1994 Brazilian Grand Prix, 1994 Pacific Grand Prix and 1994 Monaco Grand Prix at how to set it out.
It would be helpful. If you have updated any files add the file name underneath. Many thanks. Davnel03 16:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating Race Reports 

message: Following on from the #Carlo Mario Abate discussion above, I'd like to discuss an 'eligibility' requirement for classifying someone as a "Formula One driver" (and as a result whether they appear on List of Formula One drivers or not. At the moment the page was designed to list anyone on a GP entry list, although as Bretonbanquet pointed out to me, there are many missing. However, the page also excludes modern drivers such as Sebastian Vettel who have done the "Friday testing" role (which means they are on the entry list), because they have no intention of entering the race. I'm not that well-versed in F1 history, but I assume this may also be the case of a few part-timers back in the old days - entering a GP just to get some practice miles up with no hope or intention of actually racing... So, I'd like to suggest a new criteria for the list - any driver who has attempted to qualify (or pre-qualify) for an F1 World Championship Grand Prix. This means we keep minor drivers who were definitely intending to at least attempt to race, whilst getting rid of people like Karl Oppitzhauser - who attempted to enter the 76 Austrian GP but was refused. I'd also  suggest that we include these names on the page somewhere, but not on the main list. Thoughts? – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 11:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see a list (at least) of everyone who was on an entry list, even those who were just mucking about - like Bernie Ecclestone for instance... But while I think that a list would suffice for some of these guys as opposed to individual articles, we would have to use some kind of POV in some cases when deciding who was serious and who wasn't. Difficult one, that, but as you say, Oppitzhauser for example was at best incredibly optimistic and probably ranks among the most marginal "F1 drivers".  I think some kind of list of Friday testers is in order too. Enyclopediacally, they all need to be at least mentioned.  Bretonbanquet 11:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that they should all be mentioned and that the list somewhat compensates for not having an individual article (I believe Juan Jover's page was deleted a couple of times for non-notability even though he actually qualified)... I was just wondering if bona-fide F1 drivers 'deserved' to be on a separate list on that page - having Neel Jani (19 GPs) and Luigi Fagioli (7) in the same list with the same number of GPs to their names gives the wrong impression in my opinion. I'm fine with either way though. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 11:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that last point - the Friday testers shouldn't be on the same list as any other F1 drivers, since they never even threatened to start F1 Grand prix - people like Matteo Bobbi, Ryan Briscoe, Bas Leinders etc.  A separate list somewhere, perhaps.  We have the proper main list article, which could be for all qualifiers and genuine attempts to qualify (which it basically is already), then maybe we could have another list for entrants who failed to turn up / non-serious attempts / withdrawals etc, i.e. the Carlo Mario Abates of this world, plus another for Friday testers. Any other thoughts? Bretonbanquet 00:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I quite like that :o)  If we use pink for the guys who DNQ'd, maybe the likes of Abate could be a different colour?  Any other comments?  Bretonbanquet 15:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I like that. Logical, clear and readable, neatly arranged. Out of interest, why would Carlo Mario Abate need a different colour? Adrian M. H. 18:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, because he never even turned up for the races he was entered in. I just think it might be worth differentiating between drivers like him (most of whom aren't listed yet) and the guys who actually attempted to qualify. Bretonbanquet 19:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha, I see! I gave his article the briefest of skims, but didn't pick up on that fact. I don't know if that warrants a different colour... Maybe an asterisk with a note would be better, given the relative rarity of that particular scenario. It would explain it neatly. Adrian M. H. 19:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure that point is in his article, which explains why you didn't spot it :D  This is a discussion we were having above here somewhere, as to whether he and his ilk need inclusion on the main list or not. There are over 30 entrants who didn't turn up for whatever reason, and we were wondering if they count as "F1 drivers" or not.  I think they should be included, but with a clear note, like you say, or something to set them aside in some way as fringe characters. Bretonbanquet 19:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's an interesting point. I'm not sure whether they should be included, given that they didn't attempt to qualify. Certainly, they'd need a caveat to mark them out. I would prefer not to include them, as presences are much more important than merely intending - or expressing an intention - to enter. I think that to include them would require a separate table, using the same or a similar layout, that describes something like "drivers who entered, but did not participate, in Grands Prix"  Adrian M. H. 20:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Formula One drivers|Formula One driver]] criteria 

message: For the 1950-1960 seasons, I propose the addition of a note to the "19xx Formula One season" page indicating that although it counted towards the championship, the Indy 500 was not a Formula One race/run to Formula One regulations. Any objections? DH85868993 17:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Subject to my point above - did 'Indy' cars of the period meet F1 regs? (which may have been as simple as a weight limit and a engine capacity limit) 4u1e 18:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1950-1960 Indy 500 

message: Article number two in the series of "F1 minnows who would not likely otherwise get their page updated" is Jean-Denis Délétraz. I'm working on the content but it looks lacking without an image. Does anyone have anything on him we could use? Readro 22:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jean-Denis Délétraz 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Most of the articles about individual Formula One cars are tagged with "Category:Formula One Cars". But the Arrows, Benetton, Ferrari, Jaguar and Minardi F1 car articles are tagged with an appropriate subcategory (e.g. "Category:Ferrari Formula One Cars") instead. It seems sensible to me to either do it one way or the other, but not a mixture of both. My initial thought was that all the F1 car articles should be classified into subcategories of "Category:Formula One Cars" rather than into "Category:Formula One Cars" itself. But then I wondered if we really want lots of little subcategories containing maybe one or two articles. The existing 5 subcategories are just collections of articles about individual cars; there aren't any "common" or "related" articles. So perhaps it would be better to just do away with the subcategories and just tag all the F1 car articles with "Category:Formula One Cars". [Note also that the existence of the subcategories also raises questions like "Should the Arrows subcategory include articles on Footwork cars?", etc.] Or maybe we should have subcategories for constructors with many articles (Ferrari, McLaren, Lotus, etc) and not have subcategories for those constructors with only one or two articles. Thoughts? (Noting that the WP:F1 page doesn't provide guidance on the use of "Category:Formula One Cars"). DH85868993 17:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree with you. This problem is quite common among parent and sibling categories and in this case, it would be fixed quite easily by keeping all but the most significant and numerous cars in one parent category. Sub-categories should be restricted to, say, McLaren, Ferrari, Lotus, Williams, probably Tyrrell, and maybe Benetton (though that might open the door to Renaults and Tolemans?) Something along those lines anyway, based on significant participation and significant success. Adrian M. H. 22:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it hard to get too excited about categories, but Adrian's probably got the right solution for now. I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning, though - I believe that the criteria for needing a sub-category is really only how much stuff goes in it, not how important it is. If someone wants to create separate articles for all 20-odd Arrows/Footwork models then they probably do need a category of their own just to make the overall category summary page manageable. I would also suggest that for lesser teams with shorter histories it might be more suitable to create a summary page covering multiple models (see Ferrari 312 for example). It's hard to think of much to say about some models, and in this way you can create a single article with some interest, rather than a series of short and perhaps rather repetitive ones. I'll probably take this approach for the Fittipaldi Automotive cars when I get round to it. 4u1e 18:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Formula One cars 

message: I think a more intuitive/descriptive name for this template would be "template:F1 season". I realise the template has already been used about 100 times, but if people think it's a worthwhile change I think it shouldn't be too hard for someone to create a bot to convert the existing uses. DH85868993 11:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, having a very short title is much more helpful. This template is often used many times per article, so there's a lot to be said for keeping its name short, to save on typing effort. I say this as a Repetitive strain injury sufferer. Spute 20:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  template:F1 

message: As many people will know, prior to 1974, car numbers varied from race to race, so the contents of the "Number" column in the "Drivers Championship final standings" table in the "19xx Formula One season" article are essentially meaningless. (Except for the drivers who drove at Indy - since they only drove in one race for the whole season, it's valid to list a single race number against their name). Two questions:
* Is this worth worrying about, or should we just wait until the tables are updated to the "new format" (as in 1950 Formula One season) which doesn't include a "Number" column?
* If we think this issue is worth addressing now, should we leave the numbers for the Indy drivers, or just remove the column altogether?
DH85868993 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed this question (presumably due to a more recent change by the time I read my watchlist). I'm not sure what stage we're at with updating the table styles, but I would suggest waiting for that process to take its course. Kills two birds with one stone, as the saying goes. Adrian M. H. 14:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Car numbers pre 1974 

message: Some other users have started a page on 2007 Formula One season Testing. The page is in need of some rethinking and clean-up. I have made some suggestions on the talk page. But my reason for raising it here, is to ask articles on testing sessions are encyclopaedic? Should there be discrete articles on testing for each season or perhaps just a paragraph on the pre-season testing in the main season article? Cheers. --Journeyman 00:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest it's not needed as a separate article, as it is not a world championship event. If all it's going to be is a list of results then there are already places to find that information out on the internet. I think it should be deleted and a summary of testing, (a couple of sentences) added to the 2007 Formula One Season article. Alexj2002 11:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Alex's comment. It does not warrant its own article, the data itself has fairly limited worth anyway (we all know how misleading test results can be - Honda RA106 anyone?) and the useful/interesting/valuable parts can readily be incorporated into the season articles, as Alex suggested.  Adrian M. H. 15:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Pyrope 15:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles on testing 

message: It was suggested a long time ago that we should get in line with other Wikiprojects and include article ratings for F1 articles. We've never gotten round to it, but WP:MOTOR's implementation of the system (see here) reminded me. Does anyone agree that this would be useful when we start the article improvement drive up again - we could choose to focus on articles rated as high importance and low quality, for example. I think the change just consists of adding the appropriate code to the project banner and some effort in rating the articles and it seems to be possible (in some way, see WP:NASCAR) to auto-generate a list of articles at each level, which would possibly make some of the stuff Alex has put in his proposed new WP:F1 front page a bit easier to manage.
If we agree that this should be done, I will (hopefully!) cut and paste the relevant bits from the WP:MOTOR template. We can discuss how to rank levels of importance later. 4u1e 18:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - great idea --Jsydave 15:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - I've started by modifying the project box, somwhat tentatively. I'll need to look into how the NASCAR project collate the results and decide where to duplicate that - another modification for Alex's proposed revamp for the main page above? 4u1e 12:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article ratings 

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

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

message: I think this page needs to be archived again. I don't mind doing it, but is there any special technique? Or do you create a new page, move all the non-active content from this page there and then remove it from here? DH85868993 06:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's still a lot of room on the page 5 that I made recently. I was holding off moving more topics, as many of the older ones were still active to some degree. Adrian M. H. 12:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, I just did it. Feel free to revert this page and blank Archive_6 if you like. DH85868993 12:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Or move stuff from Archive_6 to Archive_5. DH85868993 12:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'll just move it over, since page 6 will be needed soon anyway! Adrian M. H. 17:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All done. Page 5 is now pretty much full. Someone may like to re-arrange the content in date order if that is advantageous. Adrian M. H. 17:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for another archive? 

message: There are several kinds of tables which link to chassis:
Entry lists (here's an extract from the entry list for the 1950 British Grand Prix):
No	Driver      	Entrant            	Constructor	Chassis         	Engine        	Tyre
4 	Reg Parnell 	SA Alfa Romeo      	Alfa Romeo 	Alfa Romeo 158  	Alfa Romeo L8s	
5 	David Murray	Scuderia Ambrosiana	Maserati   	Maserati 4CLT-48	Maserati L4s  	
Note: In the "Chassis" column:
* "Alfa Romeo 158" is linked to Alfa Romeo (presumably because there's no specific article for the 158)
* "Maserati 4CLT-48" is linked to Maserati (presumably because there's no specific article for the 4CLT-48)''
Driver career summary tables (here's an extract from the wonderful John Surtees table):
Year	Entrant                    	Chassis   	Engine         	1     	2   	3   	4     	5     	6   	7     	8     	9     	10	11	12	13	WDC 	Points
1961	Yeoman Credit Racing Team  	Cooper T53	Coventry Climax	MONRet	NED7	BEL5	FRARet	GBRRet	GER5	ITARet	USARet	      	  	  	  	  	12th	4
1962	Bowmaker-Yeoman Racing Team	Lola Mk4  	Coventry Climax	NEDRet	MON4	BEL5	FRA5  	GBR2  	GER2	ITARet	USARet	RSARet	  	  	  	  	4th 	19
Note:
* "Lola Mk4" is linked to Lola Mk4
* "Cooper T53" is linked to Cooper Car Company (presumably because there's no specific article for "Cooper T53" and/or because the Cooper Car Company article is the one which best covers the T53 (it contains a photo of a T53))''
and Constructor career summary tables (here's an extract the Jordan Grand Prix table):
Year	Chassis   	Engine     	Tyres	Drivers           	1  	2  	3  	4  	5  	6  	7  	8  	9  	10 	11 	12 	13 	14 	15 	16 	17 	18	19	Points	WCC
1995	Jordan 195	Peugeot V10	     	                  	BRA	ARG	SMR	ESP	MON	CAN	FRA	GBR	GER	HUN	BEL	ITA	POR	EUR	PFC	JPN	AUS	  	  	21    	6th
1995	Jordan 195	Peugeot V10	     	Rubens Barrichello	Ret	Ret	Ret	7  	Ret	2  	6  	11 	Ret	7  	6  	Ret	11 	4  	Ret	Ret	Ret	  	  	21    	6th
1995	Jordan 195	Peugeot V10	     	Eddie Irvine      	Ret	Ret	8  	5  	Ret	3  	9  	Ret	9  	13 	Ret	Ret	10 	6  	11 	4  	Ret	  	  	21    	6th
1996	Jordan 196	Peugeot V10	     	                  	AUS	BRA	ARG	EUR	SMR	MON	ESP	CAN	FRA	GBR	GER	HUN	BEL	ITA	POR	JPN	   	  	  	22    	5th
1996	Jordan 196	Peugeot V10	     	Rubens Barrichello	Ret	Ret	4  	5  	5  	Ret	Ret	Ret	9  	4  	6  	6  	Ret	5  	Ret	9  	   	  	  	22    	5th
1996	Jordan 196	Peugeot V10	     	Martin Brundle    	Ret	12 	Ret	6  	Ret	Ret	Ret	6  	8  	6  	10 	Ret	Ret	4  	9  	5  	   	  	  	22    	5th
Note:
* There is an article for the Jordan 196, so that link is blue
* There is no article for the Jordan 195, so that link is red''
I'd like to propose a slightly modified solution for discussion. My idea is to leave the Constructor career summary tables as they are, but in the Entry Lists and Driver career summary tables, to link the "constructor" part of the "Chassis" to the relevant constructor article, and link the "chassis designation" part to an article covering that particular chassis type (note that the article may or may not be dedicated to that individual type). So, the tables above would become:
No	Driver      	Entrant            	Constructor	Chassis         	Engine        	Tyre
4 	Reg Parnell 	SA Alfa Romeo      	Alfa Romeo 	Alfa Romeo 158  	Alfa Romeo L8s	
5 	David Murray	Scuderia Ambrosiana	Maserati   	Maserati 4CLT-48	Maserati L4s  	
Note: In the "Chassis" column:
* "Alfa Romeo" links to Alfa Romeo; "158" links to Alfa Romeo 158
* "Maserati" links to Maserati; "4CLT-48" links to Maserati 4CLT-48
Year	Entrant                    	Chassis   	Engine         	1     	2   	3   	4     	5     	6   	7     	8     	9     	10	11	12	13	WDC 	Points
1961	Yeoman Credit Racing Team  	Cooper T53	Coventry Climax	MONRet	NED7	BEL5	FRARet	GBRRet	GER5	ITARet	USARet	      	  	  	  	  	12th	4
1962	Bowmaker-Yeoman Racing Team	Lola Mk4  	Coventry Climax	NEDRet	MON4	BEL5	FRA5  	GBR2  	GER2	ITARet	USARet	RSARet	  	  	  	  	4th 	19
Note:
* "Cooper" is linked to Cooper Car Company and "T53" is linked to Cooper T53
* "Lola" is linked to Lola Racing Cars and "Mk4" is linked to Lola Mk4''
The advantages (as I see it) are that:
* the "Chassis" column now provides links to both the constructor and the type.
* we can possibly remove the "Constructor" column from the Entry List tables.
Note that, at the current time, there are only a handful of Entry Lists and Driver career summary tables containing Chassis details. So if people like my idea, it wouldn't require much rework. Thoughts? DH85868993 05:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I like it. One vote in favour. Adrian M. H. 12:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it too - nice work. Bretonbanquet 17:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I was just going to create the Jordan 195 article! ;-)  Support.--Diniz 17:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, why not. Gets round the problem I had constructing the Surtees-type table in not having too much red on screen at one time. Pyrope 01:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chassis links from tables 

message: In the career summary tables for constructors, should the values in the "Chassis" column include the constructor name? Or is it redundant? Currently, the constructor articles are inconsistent on this point, for example Jordan Grand Prix and Toyota F1 include the constructor name, whereas Sauber and McLaren do not.
BTW, this question really belongs as part of the Race and Career Result Charts discussion, but that's been archived, which I presume means we can't update it any more(?) Should we "unarchive" that discussion, or (radical idea) should we create a "Sample Tables" project page, and relocate that discussion to the new page's Talk page? DH85868993 06:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The constructor's name is redundant except in a tiny minority of articles, so I would leave it out unless needed. The casual reader would think that it was clumsy duplication. I'm not 100% familiar with archive policy beyond how to do it. Undoing it is another matter. Not really necessary, particularly if you provide an anchor link (ie, to a section heading) to the relevant archived topic. Adrian M. H. 13:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And don't forget about Arrows' Footwork period. Apart from these obvious circumstances I would keep the full chassis name as it avoids confusion. To take a well aired example from this page, MRD made Brabham chassis for quite a while, and the Lotus 72, 76, 78 and 79 were named John Player Specials Mk.I to IV at the time they were competing. It also helps when considering outfits that have much longer names than their chassis were given (e.g. Honda R&D, Honda Racing and Honda Racing F1 all produce/d chassis called simply Honda xxx). I don't think that full names are clumsy repetition, in fact I have a hunch that casual readers will appreciate some proper nouns rather than the alphanumeric strings that most F1 chassis designations tend to produce. Just as an aside, in the FWRC example, Williams referred to the pre-FW04 chassis as FW01-03, so this information should perhaps be worked in somewhere? Pyrope 14:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Error: Damn, I meant of course that the Loti 76, 77, 78 and 79 were JPS cars... Doh! Pyrope 15:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constructor career summary tables 

message: Could there be a standardized introduction to articles on Formula one cars? As opposed to the many different intros out there, I would prefer a single NPOV line, such as The X was a Formula One car designed by X and X as X's entry for the X season. It was driven by X and X. Gareth E Kegg 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we should avoid standardising text content to that extent. It is neither necessary nor desirable. I don't know how many different introductory paragraphs you have seen, however, so I can only volunteer my own work: Sauber C20 or C12, for example. I don't see anything wrong with that style, since it reflects the key points of that particular article. Adrian M. H. 23:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with Adrian on this. After all, what makes each car notable varies from one to another. Some stand out for technical reasons (e.g. Lotus 78), while others are interesting for the sheer number of wins they accrued (e.g. McLaren MP4/4), and so on. I personally think that the first two lines should encapsulate why you should want to read the rest of the article, and these reasons will vary between cars. Hence, a standardised intro would actually obscure pertinent information. Pyrope 09:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've hit the button there, Pyrope. I believe that every F1 car has something noteworthy about it (even if it won't be of interest to everyone). And look at Wiki's articles from the viewpoint of someone who is just browsing for interesting topics: they will be turned off if every article reads almost identically. Adrian M. H. 15:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro to Formula One car articles 

message: Hello, I have photos of Antonio from the 2006 Long Beach Grand Prix and a couple related PR events, that I could upload to Wikipedia, but I have to retain the copyright. Can I do that? You can see them here http://dechusa.tk  I have a lot more too.   CCWSF1 09:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't retain absolute copyright when uploading to Wikipedia or (preferrably) Commons. The best that you can do is either to release it on an "Attribution" licence (meaning that others can use it fo any reason provided that the attribute the work to you) or a "Noncomercial" licence (meaning that anyone can use the item for educational or personal reasons). If you want to retain full comercial copyright then you would be best advised not to upload to Wikipedia. Take a look here. Pyrope 09:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to correct the above - 'non-commercial usage' licences are NOT permitted on Wikipedia. The licence must be either Attribution or Attribution Share-Alike. Alexj2002 14:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antonio Pizzonia Photos 

message: Just to save a possible Peer Review until I've got it to Good Article standards, can some of you guys have a look at my work on the Tom Pryce article please? Thanks :D.--Skully Collins Edits 10:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, nice looking article. Well on its way to GA. I gave it a gentle edit and refreshed the results table, but there are still some points that you could focus on if your really want to polish this thing up. The first is a fairly minor point about numeration. You have to decide if you want to use text or numerals for things like 1st/first, lap 52/lap fifty-two etc., and try to keep to one or the other. Secondly, statements need to be attributed. There are quite a few places where there are comments along the lines of "so and so thought..." or "...was an admirer" which aren't attributed and need to be. My final comment is a bit more abstract. This concerns the prose style and breaks down to three main pointers: formal; pithy; and elegant. Try to maintain a formal and neutral tone, avoid superfluous superlatives and comments within the text that are subjective. Stick to facts. Try to be as concise as possible, and leave out information that doesn't really relate to the subject of the article. For this reason I took out the part about Alan Jones and Ricardo Patrese; both interesting points but more to do with the Shadow team rather than Tom Pryce. Finally, try to be more elegant in your turn of phrase. Not easy without practice (and I know that I am certainly still not there myself) but general pointers would be to try and avoid starting sentence after sentence with "He...", "The...", "It..." and so on. Also, try to avoid too much repetition within sentences and paragraphs. There were quite a few instances where single sentences contained "Pryce" or "Shadow" a number of times for instance. Also, try to reduce the length of each sentence. Only make one, or at most two points in each. If you start going over 30 words in a sentence see if you can split it. Otherwise, good job! Pyrope 14:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, there I go using "also" too much. That will teach me to proof read my own comments! Pyrope 14:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the first half and skimmed the rest, so here are my initial thoughts. Firstly, there are quite a few minor changes that I would make to phrasing. I agree with Pyrope's assessment. Secondly, I think that there are too many small facts in what is a longer-than-ideal introduction; facts that would sit better as part of the F1 career section. I noticed, for example, a slightly odd phrase in an image caption; "...is where Pryce and Jansen Van Vuuren hit each other..." Surely when a car and a human being collide, it's the car that has done all the hitting. Here is an example of the need for minor but important changes: "Pryce's death was met with grief from all those who knew him during his career, none more so then his wife Nella; his parents Jack and Gwyneth and the Shadow team" should really read "Pryce's death was met with grief from all those who knew him during his career; none more so then his wife Nella, his parents, Jack and Gwyneth, and the Shadow team." That puts the semi-colon in the correct place. There is an article somewhere on Wiki about the Oxford comma, and it applies here. Anyway, I don't want to leave only negative comments; your work so far is a good effort, and the article is well researched. Adrian M. H. 15:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I do apologise for striking part of your messege, it just helps me "tick off" what I've done and what still needs to be done. Anyway, thanks for the reviews and I'll get back to you on those points 4u1e.--Skully Collins Edits 12:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tom Pryce]] 

message: I don't want to hijack the Tom Pryce topic, but seeing as it is related - Jansen Van Vuuren; is he notable? The accident is obviously notable but I'm not sure he himself is, as his only claim is through being the guy that Pryce collided with. I think the content should be in 1977 South African Grand Prix instead. What opinions do you all have? Readro 01:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Initially, I was going to agree with you, as I was expecting to see a brief stub. As there is actually some decent content there, it will require some assessment of what is worth keeping and what can be merged. If there is a lot that is worth keeping, but little that can be merged, then it would be better to keep it. In short, I'm not sure either way. Adrian M. H. 12:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say put the bulk of it in the race article - it wouldn't be dissimilar to 2005 United States Grand Prix or 1994 San Marino Grand Prix. 4u1e 23:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jansen Van Vuuren]]

message: Just a heads up to let you all know that Clay Regazzoni has been selected as the improvement drive article for this month. Readro 01:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Top driver, sad loss. I'll certainly pitch in with what little I can. Just one question... what is with the Sporting positions box header? Sounds like athletic karma sutra moves to me; wouldn't Sporting achievements or Career titles, or somesuch, be a better phrasing? Pyrope 08:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed! Readro 11:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement Drive - [[Clay Regazzoni]] 

message: I propose changing all F1-related links to BMW (e.g. constructor and engine supplier in the 1960s, engine supplier to Brabham and others in the 1980s, engine supplier to Williams in the 2000s) to link to BMW Motorsport instead. I realise that BMW Motorsport is just a redirect to BMW Sauber, but I think that BMW Motorsport is the more logically correct entity to link to. Plus I'm not sure about the longevity of "BMW Sauber" as a name for that article - what happens when BMW decide to drop the "Sauber" name (in 2008?) DH85868993 02:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would much prefer to have a page about BMW Motorsport. I was thinking about this very issue yesterday while working on Formula BMW. There is so much history that would be better described in a dedicated article, like you suggested in the Mercedes discussion: huge touring car history, M1 Procar series (does that have its own article? Haven't seen one yet), and so on. If anyone else agrees and wants to collaborate on it, I might be able to find some time for it. Adrian M. H. 13:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it needs doing. I want to get Mercedes-Benz Motorsport sorted first, but i can see that a similar article should be done for several manufacturers, particularly those with a long and wide-ranging history in Motorsport like BMW. Brabham, Benetton, Williams, WTCC, Super Touring, Formula BMW... A lot to write about.... The [official BMW motorsport  website] would be a good place to start.Spute 19:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd agree - get all the relevant material on the BMW Motorsport page, leaving BMW Sauber as a separate article. I don't have the time to work on it though. I do have several books on Brabham covering the BMW period (surprise, surprise!) and the Autocourse 'history of the F1 car 1966 - 1985', so if anyone wants facts referencing or answers to specific questions, I may be able to help if you drop a note at my talk page. I tend to need nagging, too. Sorry! 4u1e 18:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does BMW M fit into the equation? After reading the article, I believe this (as "BMW Motorsport GmbH") is the entity which produced the 1980s F1 engine. So perhaps we should move all the racing history stuff (currently on the BMW Sauber page) to BMW M and have BMW Motorsport as a redirect to BMW M? (My brain hurts) DH85868993 04:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly... but all the FBMW series websites describe BMW Motorsport. Also see bmw-motorsport.com. As I understand it, BMW describes M as specifically the road car tuning department, destinct from the motorsport division. So if that is the case, we should keep the two subjects separate and have a BMW Motorsport article. Adrian M. H. 12:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've reinstated BMW Motorsport as an article rather than a redirect, and moved the "racing history" stuff from BMW Sauber there. DH85868993 14:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to [[BMW]] 

message: I don't know how to put it in the article. You can crop it if you want.  I have photos of Justin Wilson, Timo Glock and Cristiano da Matta too.  I'll see if those articles need photos. - CCWSF1 05:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the photo - just need to check something out though. You say it's Attribution + Noncommercial + NoDerivs in one place and Attribution 2.5 below. Which is it? If it's the former then it isn't suitable for use on Wikipedia I'm afraid. Alexj2002 16:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused. I visited the page someone suggested and it says that 'Attribution + Noncommercial + NoDerivs (by-nc-nd)' is allowed. Where does it say it's not? That is the version I wanted to use. CCWSF1 23:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try following the procedure used for this photo of John Watson. Might work out how you need. Pyrope 14:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: From WP:IMAGES: "Licenses which restrict the use of the media to non-profit or educational purposes only (i.e. noncommercial use only), or are given permission to only appear on Wikipedia, are not free enough for Wikipedia's usages or goals and will be deleted." Alexj2002 10:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if that's official policy then that's official policy. Begs the question why the  tag exists though? Pyrope 11:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The withpermission tag is to be used in conjunction with fair use. If an image is fair use, and we have permission from the copyright holder then it's used. However pictures of living people can rarely ever be claimed as fair use. Alexj2002 11:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's a photo of Antonio 

message: I think the two Veritas articles (Veritas (constructor) and Veritas (Automobile)) should be merged. Assuming people agree with this idea, does anyone have a preference for which one becomes the merged article and which one becomes the redirect? DH85868993 01:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the two, Veritas (Automobile) should be the page name. The company was almost exactly the same set up as Alta, in that it was a road car manufacturer who produced racing cars to order for privateer entrants. Therefore it is the more general page name which would be appropriate. Now go to bed and leave some work for the rest of us... ;-) Pyrope 07:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're looking for work, there's still a few of those Honda links to update... :-) DH85868993 13:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two Veritas articles are now merged. DH85868993 13:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veritas 

message: The list of highest number of "doubles" (pole and win in the same race) on the List of Formula One records has undergone a few edits recently. For a long time, the first 2 entries in the list were "1. Schumacher 37, 2. Senna 29". Then it was changed to "1. Schumacher 28, 2. Senna 29" (I think this was vandalism). Then it was changed to "1. Senna 29, 2. Schumacher 28" (I think this was probably a good faith edit). But I've seen quite a few websites which credit Schumacher with 40 such achievements. Can someone who knows the right answer please update the list? Thanks. DH85868993 13:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated... but for how long. The most reliable stats site that I know of all credit him with indeed 40 doubles (e.g. chicaneF1.com). I suspect we have some anti-Schumi trolling. Pyrope 13:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't look at me :-P. Anyway, F1db seems to agree with you on that one (Schumacher stats (40 doubles) & Senna stats (29 doubles)).--Skully Collins Edits 13:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of doubles 

message: I've gone and rated a few articles on F1 at the moment and I've hit trouble (already!). So I would like some suggestions for the following scenarios (sp?):
* F1 race report: Several race reports I've come accross have only the race results, should those articles be considered "stubs"?
* F1 driver priority:<sarcasm> Ah, yes...My favourite part of the Bio template. </sarcasm> Anyway, I came across the Jenson Button article and found it to be "mid" importance on the bio wiki-project template. I demoted it down to "low" because Button has only on one race. Sure, he's notable in a Formula One scope but this template considers every notable person that ever lived...so I think that drivers who have won a World Championship (or record) can be considered "mid" priority on those templates, while those who have won 3 (or more) titles can be considered for a higher priority.
* Another headache I've encountered is that of lists. We have four FLs now on WP:F1 and should there be a class for these., or should they be under the FA banner?
Anyway, any suggestions for improvement would be very welcome (and appreciated ;-)).--Skully Collins Edits 15:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Skully. Good questions as ever. Re. the race reports, I would say yes to stubbing all those with results only, or even those with only very brief race summary sections (say <5 lines or so). Of course, some races are fairly dull (shock, horror...) and these may not need more, so it might be a matter of judgment. As for the priority, bear in mind that we are overlapping with the biographical community on this one. While, from our motorsport-centric viewpoint, JB might be only moderately interesting alongside the true greats, he is a probably one of the better known sportsmen in the UK, so may well deserve his "mid" rating. Pyrope 08:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Ratings (Q & A) 

message: Well, today I found out that Alain Prost, the second FA bio I've worked on (With the invaluble (sp?) help of many others ;-)), is now going to appear on the Wiki Main Page. Meaning that it'll join Damon Hill and Formula One in that respect.
The only thing is that it appears on a Saturday and I'm not online on weekends. So can I ask you lot to "look after" it for me from those vandals. I'm sure (Well, I know 4u1e knows what I'm talking about) what happened with Damon Hill when it reached the mainpage last year.--Skully Collins Edits 10:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be unavoidable - a combination of those who can't resist vandalising any article and those who have particular axes to grind. The former aren't really too much of a problem as lots of editors watch the main article and will revert the addition of pictures of genitals or replacing the whole page with "Danny is ACE!!!!!!!! Yay! :-)" or similar nonsense. We need to keep an eye on editors introducing particular agendas, though, which may not be evident to most readers. I should be around for part of the day. It would probably be useful to give the article a final polish before it appears as well, I know there's been a certain amount of editing since it went FA. Cheers. 4u1e 16:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alain joins Damon and F1 as TFA!