Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Category:Monaco Grand Prix drivers

I just came across the Category:Monaco Grand Prix drivers. Before sending this to CfD, I wanna know the opinion of others in this WikiProject. Is this really worthwhile? Yes, Monaco is tradition, it's history, but so is Belgium, for instance. Are we gonna do this for every F1 race? Aecis·(away) ^talk 17:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A category for every driver who has every driven at Monaco? I'm struggling to see what use an encyclopedia would have for it. ChicaneF1 and similar sites do this kind of thing, but don't think this is the right place for it. If that's what it's intended to be, it's also hugely incomplete, and would be almost pointless, since the number of drivers of note who haven't driven at Monaco is vanishingly small. 4u1e (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The category seems generalized and would run awfully long if all drivers added since 1929. But what do you intend to do about the subcategory Category:Monaco Grand Prix winners? Because that also seems to be the only category of its kind. LeaveSleaves (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we delete this category once before? And do the same thing over at WP:Motorsport for Argentine Grand Prix drivers? The359 (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete it. It's not the only race with history - many European races have a far longer tradition. Readro (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think all such categories are pretty useless - what do they add? How many F1 drivers over the years didn't drive at Monaco? Not many, I suspect - this category is far too general. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few probably but the categories are useless as they lump in the local boy with the full season regulars. No objection to their removal here. AlexJ (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I want it. I've been looking for somethng like it for years on end. I want it and most people I know. An encyclopedia tells as much as possible and this is one of those things. Chubbennaitor 14:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"I like it" isn't really a valid reason to keep. Your second argument "an encyclopedia tells as much as possible" I disagree with. An encyclopedia, goes into detail, however it does not detail every single minor fact which your point seems to suggest. D.M.N. (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as this discussion has been going on for two weeks, I've put the two categories up for CFD here and here. D.M.N. (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Monaco Grand Prix drivers deleted; Category:Monaco Grand Prix winners kept. D.M.N. (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Buenos Aires circuit

The article Autódromo Oscar Alfredo Gálvez has been moved to Autódromo Juan y Oscar Gálvez some time ago, apparently based on a blogspot. I contacted the moving user, but he/she is on a wikibreak, so I'm bringing it here. Does anyone know if the circuit name has been changed? The official website doesn't mention it. Aecis·(away) ^talk 16:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who moved the page. On the 17th of August, Mxcatania updated the circuit name within the article, but didn't change the article name. I asked Mxcatania (who seems to be quite knowledgeable about motor racing in Argentina) whether the circuit name had been changed and he said yes, providing the blogspot reference as a source. He added that there are numerous other sources confirming the name change, but they're all in Spanish. DH85868993 (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was me. The following link is a cached copy of the related law issued by Buenos Aires Legislature (in Spanish). Recently, Buenos Aires Herald, one of the main Argentine newspapers in English, announced a TRV6 race 'to be held in the "Juan y Oscar Gálvez" circuit in Buenos Aires.' Regards, Mxcatania (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

AFD

2012 Formula One season (here). D.M.N. (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of safety car affected Formula One races. D.M.N. (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured Picture Candidate

Featured Picture candidate

Image:Bridgestone Make Cars Green tyres 2008 Japan.jpg has been nominated for Featured Picture status here. Comments are welcome.--Diniz(talk) 14:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Damon Hill

Damon Hill, one of our oldest FAs, may soon be put up for WP:FAR. Giants2008 has identified some problems with it on the talk page. His points are generally fair. If anyone is able to help with copyediting or improving the quality of references, your assistance would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! 4u1e (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Just looking through the current FA's - I think some are bordeline, which may not pass if put through an FAR. As some of you know, the FA standards have been heavily tightened, with sources being questioned on how they are reliable and stuff. Out of our FA's, if they were put through an FAR, I'd expect the bottom five FA's to be kept as FA rather easily, but the top 4 I think might just skim through Keep or be removed as FA's. Also see this and Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)'s FAC cheatsheet. D.M.N. (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Might be worth keeping an eye out for vandalism on the F1 articles, particularly Max Mosley. The FIA has just made an announcement that F1 is going spec-engines. Readro (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

FIA's article is also a target for "similar" reasons. D.M.N. (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sponsor in <name> Grand Prix articles

I'm not sure whether this has been brought up before, but what's our view on things like this? IMO, I don't see any real need for it, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. D.M.N. (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well they have cast it as a summary of the race's official name through the years. I think that's helpful and informative. Were it just a list of organisations that have sponsored the race that would be a different matter, but in this case I'm content to let it stand. Pyrope 21:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 22, 2008

Note the above. Might be wise to put 1995 Pacific Grand Prix on watchlists. =) D.M.N. (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Red Bulls

Hi all. user:Cvinne has just moved Red Bull Racing (the F1 team article) to Red Bull Racing (Formula One) and (I think) Team Red Bull (the NASCAR team) to Red Bull Racing Team (NASCAR). Probably quite logical, but I don't think it's been discussed, so I thought I should bring it up here for a project-wide view. Also, would anyone like to volunteer to get a bot to sort out all the links. I know redirects will take care of it, but that gets very messy if things change again in future. I've started a discussion at WP:MOTOR - can we discuss it there? 4u1e (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It's not the same. Chubbennaitor 19:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Utterly pointless and actually more confusing, certainly for the F1 team. DAB links at the top of each page would have been sufficient. Revert the F1 team to its original title. Pyrope 20:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverted move of Red Bull Racing as no rationale was given and significant opposition voiced. I have no opinion on naming NASCAR pages but a move to Red Bull Racing Team would be fine by me. There are discussions of this on several talk pages; we need to agree a single location to discuss this. --Rogerb67 (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a centralised discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#Red Bull (various) (mentioned above but missed by me and presumably others). --Rogerb67 (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Alan Donnelly

Do we have an article on this person? There is an article under the name Alan Donnelly (albeit a two line stub!), but I'm not sure whether they are the same person or not. Did Donnelly ever have a career in politics? IMO, I think there should be an article on him. D.M.N. (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Same guy. [1]. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Foreign corner names

I'm just wondering about the names of corners on foreign language tracks in article text. As it stands now (not italics) the text appears faintly clumsy and harder to read. As most examples in this project I could find are not italicized, I was wondering what the views of others are when it comes to this, as I feel that many articles could benefit with italicized corner names. Thoughts? Apterygial (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Manual of Style does say to use italics for foreign language words, but it also says "a proper name is usually not italicized when it is used", which would include corner names. So the current norm is probably correct as far as the MoS goes, but we could invoke WP:IAR if we wanted to do something different. My view is that if the article is well-written, the corner names should be quite obvious to the reader without italics. What do others think? 4u1e (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a lot, as it would appear. Apterygial (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think placenames are normally italicised, and I've never seen italics used for corner names in race reports. On a related point, I'm not happy with adding the word "corner" to every name. Seems a bit "specialist subject the bleeding obvious" to me, and it does make for clumsy text. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that use of words of "corner" or "chicane" is appropriate when the specific name is used for the first time. This helps in understanding of a new reader. Such use can be omitted for that corner (or otherwise) for rest of the article. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 18:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hows about this?

Hows this for a start for my improvements? 1980 German Grand Prix. Anything I should do differently before continuing on? Perhaps we should get some more links to the page, then it might make it more worthwhile? Ste900R (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine. I corrected the third place getter in the infobox (as far as I know Felipe Massa wasn't in F1 at the time)(or Australian). One thing to make sure of: it is always best if the circuit map in the infobox is the one that they actually raced on, the one there is from 1994. Apterygial (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I copied it from the 2008 german gp, so I must have missed Massa. As far as I know, that was the track prior to 2002, so it is the right one. Ste900R (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not. There was no Ostkurve Chicane in 1980, a chicane in that region was not added until 1982, and the modern Ostkurve Chicane was not developed until 1992. The Clarkkurve and Sennakurve Chicanes were also redesigned in 1994. See. The359 (talk) 09:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so, where do I get a map? Can I use that one? Sorry, but I have no idea about the rules for wikipedia and images, I've never used an image on wiki before. Ste900R (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There is currently no map for the 1980 version, so leave it blank. And no, you can't use pictures from other websites, we have copyright rules. The359 (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well I'm hoping to get through around 3 gp's per day. They take a long time and I have a busy schedule. Hopefully I can get through a few seasons eventually. Ste900R (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done for making a good start! One thing I would point out is that we are an encyclopedia, not a stats site. This means that we need to concentrate on prose contributions and not simply representing data in a new way. Another point is to be very selective over your inclusion of things in the "notes". If it is something that you can imagine will make it's way into the full desciption once someone has time to write it then it could be included, but things like "10th Fastest Lap for Car 27" are completely trivial. I would also include in that any milestone that isn't a multiple of 100. These aren't meant to criticise what you have done so far, just give you a few pointers on where to go in future! Keep up the good work. Pyrope 14:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, once you've added the infobox, the pole position and fastest lap details can be removed from the "Notes" section (there's no need to have the same information in two places). And since you're editing the article anyway, would you mind updating the lead paragraph to the currently favoured format, i.e. "The <country> Grand Prix was a Formula One motor race held at [[<circuit>]] on <date>. It was the Nth round of the [[<year> Formula One season]]." DH85868993 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take all your notes into consideration, but why won't the 1968 Spanish Grand Prix infobox work? Ste900R (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ste900R, I fixed your problem on the 1968 Spanish Grand Prix article. D.M.N. (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can't believe I missed that. Ste900R (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, DH85868993, do you want me to put the 2008 season to that format if I ever get round to it? Also do you want it as 1968 South African Grand Prix or South African Grand Prix? To Pyrop, should I put in the trivial facts anyway, because surely there is no harm in a little more info? I didn't put the smaller facts in because frankly, there was a lot of them, but I will start anyways. Ste900R (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, yes, I meant to include the year , i.e. "1968 South African Grand Prix" not just "South African Grand Prix". By all means update the 2008 season articles, although I'd possibly recommend waiting until next year to do it - people tend to get a bit possessive of the current season's articles... I'd also strongly recommend leaving out the trivial facts per WP:TRIVIA. DH85868993 (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Define "more info". Where do you stop? The more trivial fluff you include, the less the important and interesting information stands out, so you reduce the readability and usefulness of the article. Scalping "facts" from ChicaneF1.com isn't adding to the encyclopedic article the Wikipedia is all about. Stats databases already exist, and you should try to always bear in mind the we are a general interest encyclopedia that exists to provide readable, interesting articles. Take the facts from the Spanish GP article: 50th Race Entry - Ford (Engine Manufacturer) (dull and insignificant); 50th Race Entry - Repco (Engine Manufacturer) (ditto); 1st Win - Gold Leaf Team Lotus (Entrant) (Lotus's first win? Are you kidding? This is deeply misleading.); 1st Fastest Lap - Jean-Pierre Beltoise (Driver) (borderline, but not hugely interesting); 1st Fastest Lap - Matra International (Entrant) (definitely trivial); 1st Fastest Lap - Matra (Car Manufacturer) (borderline again); 1st Fastest Lap - Elf (Lubricant Manufacturer) (boringly trivial); 1st Pole Position - Chris Amon (Driver) (interesting!). Think about it, if somebody came and sat down next to you in a pub and started telling you all about the first time that a car using Elf fuel took fastest lap in a GP... Well I'm an F1 fan through and through, but I'd probably start looking at my watch and making excuses. Ultimately a race report shouldn't need a "Notes" section as all the information should be in the article body. But as this is a work in progress we tolerate these sections as better than nothing. Pyrope 17:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what your saying, especially about the Elf fuel, but to be honest I don't have an aweful lot of time to make it A grade work. I will try and pick out the important facts in future and I am going to start with the 1968 season, and go on from that until now. I will try, but I cannot promise an aweful lot. I am not going to write full sentences about this, fullstop. Will start again tomorrow. It takes a lot of time to do this you know, and it will take even longer having to pick out the facts, but again, will try. And those facts don't lie, that was probably Gold Leaf Team Lotus's first win. Thething is, we don't have every F1 team, so I just linked it to lotus, eventhough it is a completely seperate team. Ste900R (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually to make it easier, I think I will just leave out milestones, and put a few records in where I can. Ste900R (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not asking A-grade work Ste900R - you're doing a good job at the moment - however this is an encyclopedia, some of the things ChicaneF1 note are not notable for an encyclopedia. D.M.N. (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand you, and I'll do my best. Ste900R (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Gold Leaf Team Lotus were Lotus. Even if you were under the misapprehension that the team was different then you really shouldn't be wikilinking to any old article that may or may not bear a relation to it. Pyrope 19:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, got it, Gold Leaf Team Lotus was Team Lotus, with Gold Leaf being the sponsor for the years 1968-1971, but what the fact is trying to say is that it was the first win for Lotus when it was sponsored by them. I agree now that it is missleading, and needs to be changed. I'll leave you to do the honours if you like. Ste900R (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be included at all. Teams change sponsors a lot. Winning under one sponsor compared to another isn't very important. The359 (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please can somebody confirm which race was Jack Brabham's 100'th F1 start. On Chicane F1, it says it was the 1968 Belgian Grand Prix, but on 1968 British Grand Prix it already had on it that it was his 100th. Ste900R (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The results table in the Jack Brabham article identifies the 1968 British Grand Prix as Brabham's 100th WDC start. Note that the ChicaneF1 link you provided identifies the 1968 Belgian GP as his 100th race entry not his 100th start. DH85868993 (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Ste900R (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(Unident) - First, before I get into a bit of a rant, well done on adding infoboxes into articles, a bit of a laborious task but worthwhile to achieve consistency. Now onto the trivia - one of my pet hates on WP. Can you consider adding these facts as prose rather than bullet points? Firstly it would help you to decide what's actually noteworthy of inclusion and what should be left out (you'd be more inclined to think "who the hell cares" reading the sentence "so-and-so won the race, the first victory for a car running Champion spark plugs" than if it was in a list of bullet points). It doesn't need to be anything fancy, you're probably adding to a stub so just an extra sentence in the main body would suffice. Having trivia sections just causes other people to copy such sections and start adding them to well-developed articles that don't need them. The other reason for using prose is that it provides the opportunity for little bit of context rather than just stating the plain fact. Twice you've been mislead by the bullet point (race entries/starts, and teams/team names) so the effect on the reader (who quite possibly has no F1 knowledge at all) will be the same or worse. Facts than can mislead are worse than no facts at all, so there is harm in a little more info. AlexJ (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with AlexJ here mostly. It would be worth adding a line or two up top, and over time (hopefully) the flesh would get put onto the bones to build up the content. D.M.N. (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you AlexJ. I will put some writing at the top of the page, rather than the bullet points underneath. This will take some time though, and I am restricting myself to 3gp's a day due to being in the middle of GCSE's, more possibly in the holidays. This is just under an hour job for me to do 3gp's. I will now research each team before putting it into the writing, to stop myself being confused again, and thus probably confusing others. It would be much easier if I had Murray Walker by my side. Thank goodness there is no time restriction for this, and to be clear

If anybody wants to help me, I would be grateful.

Also, I started at 1968 because before that they were having races that did not count towards points, and I was unsure how to include things like this. Just incase anybody was wondering. Ste900R (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

When you "races that did not count towards points" do you mean non-championship races or dropped scores? NC races were still being held in the 1980s and dropped scoring systems were in place as late as 1990 IIRC. AlexJ (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Short answer, to save discussion, I made it up. Long answer, I went though the years in the Formula One years template. In 1967, it says the Non-Championship race results. In 1968 and for a few years onwards, it does not. This led me to believe that after 1968, there was no more Non-Championship races. However, I have now discovered that after that there were Non-Championship races. So basically I have no reason whatsoever for starting at 1968. Ste900R (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Easy, no-one's getting at you. It doesn't matter where you started, it's just good that you're doing it. The reason that the NC stats aren't complete is that they're a work in progress and I haven't got around to it. All the NC race reports should already have infoboxes anyway. I'll try and do a few infoboxes as well, I'll start from 1950 if work needs doing there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I went a bit mad when I wrote that (just taken it out). Thanks for the help. Ste900R (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

We are always here to help if you want to check anything at all, and in fact the editors here probably have a knowledge resource that could put even MW to shame, although if you really want minutiae then join Autosport's Nostalgia Forum. That's been quite useful to me in the past. Certainly if between us we don't know something, we will certainly know where to find out. If you don't feel comfortable bringing a question here and want a faster response than a post on the particular page's talk page, then just leave a message with one of the usual suspects (read the discussions above and you'll get a very good idea of who they, we?, are). However, a mass push at adding infoboxes to articles probably won't happen. People edit Wikipedia for fun and they tend to do what makes them happiest. Some days I feel like some routine table construction or box addition (probably with some music cranking on the radio) and on other days I'll spend hours researching the development of suspension mounting point evolution. Each to their own. The only time something needs to be done is when a page faces deletion or demotion if it isn't, otherwise we just bimble around and follow our own agendas. Finally, Wikipedia will often have answers for most basic questions. List of Formula One World Championship pointscoring systems exists, and a lot of other information is already in the "Big Six" articles. Pyrope 17:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

All taken into account, and a big thanks to everybody on this Formula One WikiProject. Ste900R (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if what I said came across as being aggressive - it definitely wasn't intended to be. Any 'criticism' I give out is always intended to be constructive and helpful. AlexJ (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't come across aggressive. It's just I sometimes write in an aggressive mannor, eventhough I do not mean it. Sorry. Lets just put this behind us and start afresh, hopefully getting back onto the topic of F1. Ste900R (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 Belgian Grand Prix

This article is currently on a GA hold, and the reviewer has said that a little copyediting needs to done. If you are passing the page and see anything at all that could be fixed then that would be useful. Cheers, Apterygial (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it passed a couple of days ago. Woo! Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 09:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

UPPI

During some research for my Race of Two Worlds article, I came across several mentions of a drivers union composed of Grand Prix drivers being started in the 1950s, and apparently led by Louis Chiron. They led the boycott of Grand Prix drivers against the race.

However, all I can find is that it was known as UPPI. Does anyone have any information (possibly with a reference) regarding what UPPI stood for? I'm also having trouble nailing down if they were formed before the 1957 race or 1958 race. The359 (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This webpage and this one (both in French) indicate that UPPI stood for "Union des Pilotes Professionnels Internationaux" (or "International Union of Professional Drivers", according to my somewhat rusty high-school French). This page (in English - hooray!) suggests that the UPPI was formed in 1957. Thanks for raising the topic - I'd never heard of the UPPI until now. DH85868993 (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Might be something worth adding to the To-Do List. The359 (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A bit of Googling suggests it was formed August 12, 1957. AlexJ (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Odd, that seems to go against what I've been seeing in sources, in that they were formed prior to the Race of Two Worlds in June 1957. The359 (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah scratch that. An article printed in The Times in June '57 states "The drivers' union was formed last month at Monaco". It gives Chiron as president, Fangio and Piero Taruffi as vice-presidents and Stirling Moss, Maurice Trintignant, Umberto Maglioli and Harry Schell as members of the council. AlexJ (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'm pretty sure it was formed at Monaco in '57. Readro (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so far

I have recently been working on the reports from grand prix races such as the 1968 South African Grand Prix and have come to the conclusion that credit needs to be given to all those who have worked on the reports of each Grand Prix so far, because they take an awful long time to do. For example my South African page has taken me hours to do because of all the table worked involved and having to find out the information from all the different sources (and I still haven't written up the notes into full sentences yet). So just a big thank you to all the people who have spend their free time making the reports on the Grand Prix's. Ste900R (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I shall now hold up the 'Huh? I am confuzzled' sign. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This links on to the topic I was having before entitled "Hows about this?". I will redo my first post to make it easier to understand. Also, apart from writing up the notes, is there anything else I could do to the 1968 South African Grand Prix to improve it? Also, how do you get an article assessed? Ste900R (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any detail available on the race itself? Might want to put some tense in the sentence about the winner (Future two-time world champion etc), as obviously he wasn't two time world champion at the time. Sadly with races this old finding the sources is very difficult, as it is mostly ephemera that records it. As for assessment, B-class et al is done in project, good and featured are done via the various wikiwide processes. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now finished the 1968 South African Grand Prix, it could still be improved much further, but I have done all I am going to do for it. Jim Clark was actually two-time world champion at the time, with that being his last ever race. Ste900R (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I read last win as first win in the article. Stupid brain. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You said: So just a big thank you to all the people who have spend their free time making the reports on the Grand Prix's. Erm, only a few articles have fully cited, neutral reports.... D.M.N. (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I may have got carried away, but just having the one table in each Grand Prix must have taken ages! Ste900R (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed page move

I have proposed that the recently-created Milano (racing team) article be moved to Scuderia Milano, over the existing redirect. Please add any comments you may have here. (Note that the move requires administrator assistance, or I would have just done it myself). DH85868993 (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Several McLaren car articles created - possible moves needed

• McLaren M14A
• McLaren M14D
• McLaren M19A
• McLaren M19C
• McLaren M29F

Shouldn't the first two (14A and 14D) be covered in McLaren M14, with the next two (19A and 19C) covered in McLaren M19, while the McLaren M29F article should be merged into McLaren M29 I think. D.M.N. (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. But they are slightly different aren't they. They'd need completely separate sections. Chubbennaitor 09:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Only slightly different. I think it makes the articles much weaker to split things too finely. Pyrope 11:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of merging McLaren M14A and McLaren M14D, but rather than merging them both into McLaren M14 (a type which never existed per se), I'd recommend merging McLaren M14D into McLaren M14A, such that McLaren M14A covers all the M14 variants, similar to the way in which McLaren M7A covers all the M7 variants (i.e. M7A, M7B, M7C and M7D) - as I understand it, the M14D was essentially just an M14A with the necessary modifications to accept the Alfa Romeo engine instead of the Cosworth. Likewise, I'd recommend merging McLaren M19C into McLaren M19A rather than merging them both into McLaren M19. (And of course I also support merging McLaren M29F into McLaren M29). DH85868993 (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to why the M28 is listed. Just because it's new? Or because you want to move ot somewhere? The359 (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Woops. Ignore that one. D.M.N. (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that we consider the A/B/C spec cars to be revisions of the main car. It therefore makes sense to cover them all in the one article. Separate articles would mean repeating the same basic information with a small section on the things unique to the revision. With a few exceptions most of our car articles are stubs, so covering all revisions would at least gives the article a bit of substance. AlexJ (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Done all merges per DH's suggestion. D.M.N. (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Formula 1 Main template

As you will obviously know the Formula 1 template is designed in a way that it sits at the top of the article, instead of at the bottom of articles in a collapsible format, many of the templates in this wikiproject are in this collapsible format, and I believe the Main template should follow suit. First of all it is awkward, having a big template at the top of the page, especially in lists where it can hinder the table and prevent images from being placed alongside the list. It is also unhelpful in articles as it taking up space that could be used for images. Hopefully some of you will agree it should be placed at the bottom of the page in the collapsible format, which is the standard for most templates in Wikipedia NapHit (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What Formula 1 template ? -- Guroadrunner (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I presume this one. I have to say I think it should remain vertical and at the top, but I agree it should be collapsable. Templates like this are common actually, see most any article on a country or religion. The359 (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair point I hadn't seen those templates, anyway I still think ot should go a the bottom, and it definitely needs to be collapsible NapHit (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

* I would recommend keeping the template at the top, but kill the 'see also' section, which would belong at the bottom of the Formula 1 article. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say keep it at the top, but make it collapsible. I'm not really fussed either way about the "See also" section, providing it's collapsible. DH85868993 (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Race report template

Speaking of templates that do go at the bottom, an editor has just flipped this one, which goes at the bottom of every race report, so that 1990 appears as the top and 2008 at the bottom. It was previously the other way around. In his edit summary, he pointed out that that was the norm. I personally preferred the first layout. Is this a case for WP:IAR, or do we keep it as is (it makes skirting around the current season easier)? Apterygial (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The editor is right, chronologically lists and templates should start with the oldest year first see WP:MOS NapHit (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I wondered about WP:IAR. Apterygial (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

One issue with having 1990 at the top is that it highlights the somewhat arbitrary choice of 1990 as the starting year for the template. Also, I would imagine that most people using the template to navigate would probably be more interested in the more recent races rather than the older races, in which case it seems more sensible to me to have the current season at the top. DH85868993 (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree. The current/recent season is obviously matter of more interest for such template and should be instantly accessible. A possible solution, keeping in mind the MOS, could be to create a collapsed version of earlier seasons inside the template, with current season out in the open. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 09:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of 1990 at the top. Chubbennaitor 09:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DH85868993 and LeaveSleaves. The current season is the most important in terms of people looking at the template. I don't think LeaveSleaves' version would work, it'd probably just clutter up the page. Return it to how it was. Apterygial (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Some pages to watch

I know some of you knew this was coming, but just a heads up. Timo Glock has been protected due to vandalism, but I've noticed several new registered users vandalizing it as well, so it (and its talk page) are worth watching. Same for Lewis Hamilton, Felipe Massa, Scuderia Ferrari, McLaren, and 2008 Formula One season. Again, also note the talk pages.

I've also removed several instances of "off-topic discussions" and cheering or jeering on article talk pages, as they don't belong per policy. The359 (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is so lucky that wikipedia has an editor like you, instead of doing worthless things such as improving articles, you are doing the totally useful job of removing brief messages on talk pages, messages that show disruptive comments of happiness for a certain British driver winning the F1 championship. Thank God for editors like you ! Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinion noted but moot. Policy disagrees with your opinion. The359 (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And you were right to do so The359. Where do you draw the line? Putting out bushfires prevents a full scale firestorm at a later date. Well done. Pyrope 14:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles proposed for deletion

FYI, Rob White (Formula One) and Bob Bell (motorsport)‎ have been proposed for deletion. DH85868993 (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Arrows redirects

I notice the recent creation of Arrows FA1, Arrows A1, Arrows A2, Arrows A4, Arrows A5, Arrows A6, Arrows A7, Arrows A8, Arrows A9, Arrows A10, Arrows A11, Footwork FA13 and Footwork FA14, all of which are redirects to Arrows. Last time some redirects like this were created, we decided it was preferable not to have the redirects, since they masked the fact that proper articles didn't exist. Do we want to keep this latest lot, or delete them? DH85868993 (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In line with my previous opinion, I'd prefer that they disappear. Pyrope 15:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: The redirects have now all been converted to stub articles. DH85868993 (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Current" teams and drivers

Now that the last race of the season has been run, it's time for our annual discussion of which teams and drivers we consider to be "current" (and hence bolded in the various lists). Currently :-) there is a discrepancy between List of Formula One drivers, which highlights all the 2008 drivers in bold, and List of Formula One driver records which highlights "Drivers who are due to compete in the 2009 Formula One season". I suggest that for simplicity, we continue to consider the 2008 drivers and teams to be "current" until at least the 31st of December. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a reasonable approach, but we'll probably struggle to deal with editors' enthusiasm to get things up to the nanosecond, even if it means making things inaccurate or inconsistent. But, hey, let's give it a go! 4u1e (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. If we tie each season to the actual year that it is in, we give ourselves an opportunity to allow for some kind of consistency. Apterygial (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be at all surprised. The MotoGP templates were changed for the 2009 season after the qualifying session for this year's final race! I reverted them back, only to find that they'd been changed again practically nanoseconds after the race was over. I've given up with that now. If there's a consensus here for F1, it might help, but there'll still be problems I imagine. Readro (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well if a team announces their driver line up will change then i think its fair enough to edit the "current" lists but until we get confirmation it should remain the same as 2008 Skitzo (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

But it still wouldn't be current. Vettel is currently still at Toro Rosso. Come 2009 he will be at Red Bull. Wait until all teams officially announce (I'm probably wrong but I think we are just waiting on Toro Rosso, Honda, Renault and Toyota). Apterygial (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

2009 F1

I'm on the brink of 3RR on 2009 Formula One season. Some editors simply do not heed to the fact that car numbers are not announced and still insist on adding them. I'd appreciate if someone could lend me a hand here and save me from facing any music. Thanks. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You're following talkpage consensus you haven't done anything wrong. I would request semi, but there's actual users involved here, so it would be full-protection I'd have to request. However, RFPP is very clogged at the moment due to events at the other side of the pond, so any request wouldn't get an answer now. In any event, the page is on my watchlist. D.M.N. (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

with the exception of McLaren as we know what their numbers HAVE to be, non of the others should have them as we don't know which Ferrari driver will get the no. 3 car, Massa as runner up or Raikkonen as their highest paid driver and so on all the way down the grid...Skitzo (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Race report articles

When do we normally create the race report articles? Just wondering, as we normally have one or two users jumping the gun - I'm expecting the calendar to change further so any creation now may be premature for some reports IMO. D.M.N. (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, 2009 Australian Grand Prix has already been created. I guess the least we could do is wait till the season calendar is set. There's still some amount of debate on Canadian and French GPs. Looking at 2008 season, the articles were created from as early as July '07 [2] [3] to Nov '07 [4] [5]. If someone starts creating articles randomly, I think we should just let it be. It isn't exactly harmful. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, as long as we keep close watch on the level of unsupported guesswork and rumour. Pyrope 21:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

While I've got that heading up there, I might as well propose this minor change to the importance scale. All 2008 race reports are currently mid or higher (Singapore and Brazil) while the scale says that they should be low. It doesn't really matter, but I would say that we have current year race reports at mid importance, then come Australia next year we drop appropriate ones to low and raise '09s to mid. This seems to happen anyway and it would be good to make it official. It would also be in line with how we rank driver articles. Apterygial (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Team & driver infoboxes during the offseason

Perhaps not unsurprisingly, we've already seen some addition and reversion of some 2009 season information to the F1 team and driver infoboxes. In the interest of trying to limit future occurrences and to maintain consistent/correct information in the infoboxes, while still allowing for the inclusion of "up to the nanosecond" information, what do people think of the idea of updating the F1 team and driver infoboxes and {{Formula One teams}} such that between now and "sometime early in 2009", they display both the 2008 and 2009 information? Here's the kind of thing I'm thinking of:

Red Bull-Renault

Full name	Red Bull Racing
Base	Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Team principal/s	Christian Horner
2008 season
Race drivers	9.David Coulthard 10.Mark Webber
Test drivers	35.Sebastien Buemi
Chassis	Red Bull RB4
Engine	Renault RS27
Tyres	Bridgestone
2009 season
Race drivers	Sebastian Vettel Mark Webber
Test drivers	David Coulthard
Chassis	TBA
Engine	Renault
Tyres	Bridgestone
Formula One World Championship Career
Debut	2005 Australian Grand Prix
Latest race	2008 Brazilian Grand Prix
etc

Sebastian Vettel

Nationality German
Formula One World Championship career
2008 team	Scuderia Toro Rosso
2008 car #	15
2009 team	Red Bull Racing
2009 car #	TBA
Races	26
Championships	0
Wins	1
etc

Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll buy that. Nice compromise DH. Pyrope 16:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree too, the templates reach necessary middle ground. Although, I was hoping on getting some consensus on your earlier suggestion DH, the one regarding keeping drivers and teams under 2008 season till Dec 31. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The team order needs to be changed on the 2009 one. It should be McLaren (as they have #1 car) then Ferrari, Sauber, Renault, Toyota, STR, RBR, Williams, Honda and finally Force India. We also need a threshold for what counts as a team announcing a driver will be with them next year perhaps? I am suspecting pople will soon push for Button to be listed on the 09 Honda drivers (as it is Barachello's possible booting that is the delay), so would be useful to say 'Well, when X happens'. Oh, and Renault have confirmed their two chappies will be staying with them. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Narson, you are correct about the order of the 2009 teams. Plus, Super Aguri should be added back in to the 2008 section of the template (since they competed in the 2008 season). Regarding the threshold for driver announcement: in theory I guess this template should follow the same rules as the driver table in 2009 Formula One season, i.e. once it's reported in a reliable source - although if you look at the edit history of that article, that rule is frequently ignored :-) For the driver and team infobox templates, my thought was to replace the relevant existing parameters with a "2008" parameter and a "2009" parameter, e.g. in {{F1 team}}, we would replace the "Chassis" parameter with two parameters called "2008 Chassis" and "2009 Chassis". Once the 2009 season is underway, we would simply delete the "2008 Chassis" parameter values from the articles and also remove the parameter from the template; at the end of the 2009 season, we can simply add a "2010 Chassis" parameter, etc. DH85868993 (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a very neat solution to the problem. We could set these up and remove them come the first round next year. Apterygial (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I see Pyrope has recently had to do some more reversion. I probably won't have a chance to make the above-described changes for at least 24 hours, so if anyone wants to jump in and make them before I get around to it, feel free to do so. To minimise brokenness while the changes are being made, my plan is/was to add the new parameters into the articles first, then update the templates to display the new parameters, then go back and remove the "generic" parameters ("Chassis", etc) from the articles. DH85868993 (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Renault have now been confirmed. They are sticking with Alonso and Piquet. Apterygial (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've updated {{Formula One teams}}, {{F1 driver}} and all the driver articles. I'll do the team template and articles tomorrow unless someone beats me to it. DH85868993 (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, teams are done now too. DH85868993 (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Great work! Congratulations. Apterygial (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Interlagos pit exit layout

Anyone knows exactly when was the pit exit extended from Senna S to Curva do Sol? 1997? - oahiyeel ^talk 17:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it was in 1999. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

These two webpages [6][7] indicate that the pit exit was modified in 1997, although they're not specific about what the exact changes were (although I suspect it's the change described above). DH85868993 (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll make a new Interlagos svg map and update the relevant articles with the new pit exit... After my exams end! :) - oahiyeel ^talk 03:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Damon Hill FAR

Damon Hill has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

More refs needed, if anyone can help out. Ta! 4u1e (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Prodrive F1

With the chances of Prodrive entering F1 now becoming nearly non-existant, do we really need the Prodrive F1 article anymore? I think it'd be better to simply merge the information of their proposal back into Prodrive. This would also require the deletion of the Template:Prodrive F1 as it too is completely useless now. Thoughts? The359 (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should wait until the official 2009 entry list is announced and if they're not on the list, delete them then. (It would be somewhat ironic if, having maintained Prodrive F1 for 18 months, we deleted it now, only to have to recreate it in a couple of months time!) DH85868993 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought that an official entry list, at least in terms of teams, had already been published? And that not only had the FIA stated that Prodrive would have to enter again, but that Prodrive has shown no signs of entering? The359 (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for a merge back into Prodrive - there is information there worth keeping in there - it's a good sized start article - if it was a two-line stub, then yes, I'd see the point of deleting but there is content worth keeping in there. All I would do is change the lead from: "Prodrive F1 Team is the name of a proposed Formula One team to be run by Prodrive." to "Prodrive F1 Team was the name of a proposed Formula One team to be run by Prodrive." - with a little bit at the end of an article IMO, I can't really see the need of merging back. I don't know if we have precedent on this, but surely teams that even don't make it to the F1 grid but have some history (or even were simply proposed) have some notability? D.M.N. (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but It'll never be anything more than a start article, because there's never going to be anything else to add. If we're sure Prodrive aren't in the 2009 season, I'd say merge back into Prodrive, and keep Prodrive F1 as a redirect. If the project does resurrect itself in the future, it'd be easy enough to split the material back out again. 4u1e (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

We do have an article on the failed Phoenix Finance team and some information on Direxiv, but those two don't really have anything to merge into. The359 (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd go further and propose the deletion of Team Dubai, something of which there is very little factual information to write about, and is even less likely to actually happen than Prodrive F1. The359 (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Team Dubai and Direxiv could be merged (very briefly) into McLaren. I can't see that Phoenix Finance (I'd forgotten about that!) requires anything other than a very short mention in the relevant season articles, since they never even got an entry. 4u1e (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of Phoenix Finance could simply be merged into Prost Grand Prix, as they were basically Prost under a new name. The359 (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Team Dubai can go. Not sure about Direxiv if they have "motorsport links to the GP2 Series" D.M.N. (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Their link was sponsorship of several teams. They were apparently a Japanese venture capital that seemed to want to pour their money into numerous Japanese and European teams, but then they disappeared. This article shows the mystery of where they came from. The359 (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I was only thinking of the Direxiv potential entry into F1, fronted by Jean Alesi. My recollection is that it was another potential McLaren customer deal. 4u1e (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It was. They were technically aligned with McLaren for a Direxiv training program and young drivers program before the B-Team theories appeared, but I'm just not really sure if Direxiv should be kept or deleted. The359 (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'd tend to say it's just not notable enough to stand in its own right as an article, unless the parent venture capital company itself is). I don't think we have an article on the Leyton House real estate company, which has some similarities to this case, for example. 4u1e (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) I've tried Googling for information on Direxiv, without much luck. I agree, this is similar to cases I brought up before where we articles on F1 teams but almost no information on the actual companies or entities that owned them, such as Leyton House and ATS and the likes. The359 (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Several things have been brought up above. I'm with the consensus that:

• Direxiv - Merge?
• Team Dubai - Prod or AFD. No one seems to be disagreeing, so prod would probably work.
• Phoenix Finance - Merge into Prost Grand Prix or keep as standalone article.
• Prodrive F1 - Merge into Prodrive or keep as standalone article.

I'd personally prefer Prodrive and Phoenix Finance to stay as standalone articles, however, I'm happy to merge if consensus suggests otherwise. D.M.N. (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what can really be merged with Direxiv. They were title sponsors on teams such as David Price Racing, but that's about it. I don't think Direxiv's connection with McLaren even needs mentioning on the McLaren article. I've AfD'd Team Dubai as there seems to be no arguement against that one. The359 (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ligier

This reminds me. Who thinks the Ligier article should be split so that the F1 side is in one seperate article? IMO, it looks a mess. D.M.N. (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I added my opinion to the talk page of Ligier recently. Ligier's motorsports program prior to F1 was in sports cars, and their return to a motorsports program is again in sports cars. If Ligier is to be broken up, I think it should encompass all motorsports, as there is certainly quite a bit that can be written about their sports car history as well.

However, at the same time, how much can there really be to write about Ligier's electric car company on its own article? I honestly think that if you wrote an article concentrating on just their electric car business, it'd be meeting the minimum of notability. The359 (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd go and see if you can find enough information to spin off a decent separate article on the Ligier road car business. If can, split them out. If you can't, leave as is. 4u1e (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Never realised they had much of a history in motorsport before hand. I'd suggest a new article then called Ligier Motorsports maybe? IMO, considering they were in F1 for 20 years, yet the description is only two paragraphs - it could do with a lot of expansion, hence a new article. D.M.N. (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs expansion to cover Ligier's extensive history in F1 and sportscars - I'm just saying do the expansion first and then see whether you need to split the article. I imagine you will, but if you split it first you just end up with two small articles. 4u1e (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be a good idea if someone from France could check the road car business expansion. The type of "microcars" Ligier produces are actually quite popular in France. As for sports car racing, while I agree the early years phase with the JS1 and JS2 belongs in the Ligier F1 article, the return with the MK49 doesn't, as this CN-class prototype was actually an Automobiles Martini project, after the Ligier automotive business bought Martini (there was an F3 car that never raced, AFAIK). This was after the Ligier/Prost team had folded too. --Pc13 (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Scuderia Ferrari

An IP editor has added an (incomplete) list of Ferrari World Champions into Template:Scuderia Ferrari (corrupting the "Former drivers" link in the process) and transcluded the template into some of those drivers' articles. Do we want to keep the list of WDCs in the template (noting that we don't have such a list in the McLaren or Lotus templates)? If so, I'll complete the list, fix the link and transclude the template into all the relevant articles. DH85868993 (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be a good idea to have such a list, but a list of former drivers would include World Champions, so could we add a note to these e.g. "Michael Schumacher (World Champion)" perhaps? Schumi555 (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

United States Grands Prix

I know we've discussed this before, can't remember what the decision was, but given that we seem to be using official names for races now, I propose that we sort out the mess we currently have regarding Grands Prix held in the United States.

Currently we have articles for the United States Grand Prix, United States Grand Prix East, United States Grand Prix West and the Las Vegas Grand Prix. In my view, we ought to be sticking to the official names instead of grouping them in unofficial arrangements. I shall summarise my points for clarity.

• The only race to ever officially hold the title "United States Grand Prix - East", was held at Watkins Glen. This was for one year, and the "East" bit was just a tagline to differentiate it from the Long Beach Grand Prix, which incidentally was officially the "Long Beach Grand Prix". The "West" naming was completely unofficial.

• The Las Vegas race is fine - in 1981 it was the "Caesars Palace Grand Prix" but had become the "Las Vegas Grand Prix" in 1982.

• The race in Dallas was officially the "Dallas Grand Prix", not the United States Grand Prix.

• The race in Detroit was officially the "Detroit Grand Prix", not the United States Grand Prix.

• The race at Phoenix is fine as officially it was the "Iceberg USA Grand Prix", so slots in to the United States Grand Prix article.

Given that we are not having an article called 2009 United Arab Emirates Grand Prix and are instead deferring to the official title of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, I propose the following.

• Merge relevant parts of United States Grand Prix East with Detroit Grand Prix.
• Strip out relevant parts from United States Grand Prix and create Dallas Grand Prix.
• Merge United States Grand Prix West with Long Beach Grand Prix.
• Rewrite United States Grand Prix to fit the changes.

I'd like to hear any thoughts on the above. Readro (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This would require some changes to race results tables, would it not? Don't we use the abbreviations "USW" and "USE" at the moment? I assume we'll use "DET" and "DAL"? What about Long Beach? The359 (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It would require results table changes, yes. DET and DAL sound good. LNG? Readro (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It may not be the best idea, but isn't "LBC" a popular acronym for Long Beach? The359 (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Haven't heard that one. Actually, why not just LB? Readro (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to the earlier discussion. I agree with all of Readro's proposals, with the slight exception that I was under the impression that all 4 races held at Caesars Palace (i.e. the two F1 races 1981-82 and the two CART races 1983-84) were called the "Caesars Palace Grand Prix" (supported by the programme covers), although I'm happy to hear evidence to the contrary. Regarding an abbreviation for Long Beach Grand Prix, I believe WP:AOWR currently use "LBH" in the Indycar results tables (see Michael_Andretti#American_Open_Wheel (1983-1992) for example), although I'd be happy with "LBC" or "LB" too. DH85868993 (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The programme covers would trump my source, so I guess it should be referred to as the Caesars Palace Grand Prix then, given the absence of any other name. Regarding the abbreviations, when we've got two words in the official name, I'd have thought it'd make sense to take the initials of those. So, LB for Long Beach, CP for Caesars Palace, etc. Readro (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

My LBC suggestion was more a joke than anything, people in Long Beach seem to like to refer to it as The LBC. LB is fine. The359 (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm posting this a little late and it is perhaps irrelevant to this discussion. If so, please ignore it. The analogy for UAE Grand Prix and USA Grand Prix is not completely valid. UAE consists of independent emirates which only have certain aspects of common governing and otherwise have separate rulers and laws in respect with each emirates. I'm saying this because it seems the argument hinges on the official naming of Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, that might not have been the best example. What I intended to convey was that we have been going with a race's official name, so it makes sense to extend this to the articles for the US Grands Prix. Readro (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the abbreviations, I think a three-letter code would be more consistent with all the other codes. We currently have no two-letter codes at all, even for Great Britain, which is GBR not GB. I also think some consistency with WP:AOWR would be a good thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

LBH would be OK I'd have thought. CPL for Caesars Palace? I'm assuming that DET for Detroit and DAL for Dallas sit OK with WP:AOWR? Readro (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

All those are just fine, for me at least. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm slightly worried by a lack of responses because I want to make sure I have consensus on this scheme. I'd quite like to get the process started by the weekend but I'd like to make sure I have consensus first. I'd value any opinions. Readro (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I support your proposal. My preference would be for three-letter abbreviations.--Diniz(talk) 16:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Same here Readro, no news is good news! I would also prefer that we maintain the three letter codes. Pyrope 17:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was just being cautious! I've seen cases before where no one has responded so the person thinks they have a consensus, only for the changes to be reverted almost immediately because of "no consensus". I'm working on a page for the Dallas Grand Prix, as it seems after F1 there were Trans-Am races held under that title, so it probably deserves its own article now regardless. Readro (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

While we are at it, I notice on the United States Grand Prix page there are no fewer than five disambiguation links at the top of the page. Could we possibly condense that into a single disambiguation page? --Falcadore (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, seems it already exists - United States Grand Prix (disambiguation). Still, I've reinstated it as a single link. Readro (talk) 11:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

i oppose this change. Loosmark (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why? Care to elaborate a bit? I'm mid-way through making the changes so I'd like to know. Readro (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

because what you write isn't true. for example this: "The only race to ever officially hold the title "United States Grand Prix - East", was held at Watkins Glen. This was for one year, and the "East" bit was just a tagline to differentiate it from the Long Beach Grand Prix, which incidentally was officially the "Long Beach Grand Prix".

it wasn't for one year, it was for 3 years, the Watkins Glen race was:

1976 "XIXth United States Grand Prix-East"

1977 "XXth United States Grand Prix-East"

1979 "XXIInd United States Grand Prix-East"

"The "West" naming was completely unofficial." not true either. official names for Long Beach races:

1976 "1st United States Grand Prix - West"

1977 "IInd United States Grand Prix - West"

1978 "IIIrd United States Grand Prix - West"

1979 "IVth United States Grand Prix - West"

Loosmark (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any references for this? The359 (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

there are many. for example go to http://www.f1db.com/exec/section/grandprix/action/list_by_country and pick USA from the menu. Loosmark (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not a particularly reliable source. I refer you to the official programmes - look here for Watkins Glen. All were down as the "Grand Prix of the United States". For Long Beach, go here. Except for one year, they are all the "Long Beach Grand Prix" or "Grand Prix of Long Beach". Readro (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

these "official" programmes (made by whom?) aren't a reliable source at all. check on the official(!) Formula 1 website:

http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1976/

http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1977/

http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1978/

and so on. Loosmark (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The official programmes are exactly that - the official programmes from the actual events! The Formula One website is wrong on many counts - this is well documented. Readro (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"yeah right. the Official Formula One website is wrong... another realiable webpage:

http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/raceresults1977.html

http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/raceresults1978.html

i'm sorry but showing some webpage with flyers isn't nearly enough when respectable webpages and even the official Formula 1 webpage use USA East and USA West GP. Loosmark (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What has happened here is that a particular view of history has spread and has been repeated ad verbatim. However, this view of history is wrong. I showed you the official programmes because they are actually from the Grands Prix. At the time, the races were known as the Long Beach Grand Prix for Long Beach, the Detroit Grand Prix for Detroit and the United States Grand Prix for Watkins Glen. Journalists, for god knows whatever reason, came up with the monikers East and West, but these had nothing to do with the races' official titles. Readro (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of sources seem to use East and West - does WP:COMMONNAME not apply here? D.M.N. (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not if the common name is wrong! Readro (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"this view of history is wrong" okay sounds so convincing... the official F1 webpage is wrong. the journalist are wrong. other webpages are wrong. but and your single source are right. whatever. Loosmark (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would I go against several sources unless I had good reason to? The only issue I have here is wanting the Wikipedia Formula One pages to be as accurate as possible. Just because I've only given one source doesn't mean it's the only one. Readro (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

saying that "you have good reasons" or that you want to make "pages as accurate as possible" aren't points of much worth. i'm sure we all want that. if you want to go against the Official f1 webpage you need many convincing sources. what you put on the table so far isn't nearly good enough. Loosmark (talk) 11:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

FORIX, the Formula One database, doesn't use the "East" and "West" nomenclature - it calls the races "USA", "USA-Long Beach", "USA-Detroit", "USA-Dallas" and "USA-Las Vegas" (unfortunately, it's a subscription service, so you'll have to take my word for it if you don't have access). Autocourse 1983-84 refers to the two races held in 1983 as "Toyota Grand Prix of the United States (Long Beach)" and "United States Grand Prix (Detroit)". DH85868993 (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't we set up the abreviations discussed above (before the 14th) in the relevant templates and boxes, maybe as the official page name, and make the "common names" redirects to those pages? Put both names in bold in the lead? Rather than engaging in potentially endless cycles over whose sources are more reliable? Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 11:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

i disagree. Loosmark (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again, any elaboration? Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 12:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

the elaboration is the we should use the names which the Official Formula 1 webpage and all other sources presented so far(save one) use. Loosmark (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

May I remind everyone that the official F1 website is really just the website of the commercial rights holders FOM, who's goal is to promote the sport over being factually accurate. Their editorials etc. are always going to be pro-F1 and their results service has on several occassions been proven to be inaccurate. Remember they've only held the rights to F1 since the mid 1980s so had nothing to do with these 1970s Grands Prix and will have copied their results from elsewhere (a potentially incorrect source). I suggest Forix and Autocourse as being the most reliable sources here, along with the original event programmes. AlexJ (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

and what does Autocourse use? US East and US West. [8] this discussion is silly. Loosmark (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Loosmark, I know consensus hasn't gone how you would have liked, but this doesn't help discussion whatsoever. D.M.N. (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

??? i have not done that. Loosmark (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are more sources. Someone has put up a website with the inside of the programmes as well.

• 1977 Long Beach GP programme - "Long Beach Grand Prix"
• 1980 Long Beach GP programme - "Long Beach Grand Prix"
• 1981 Long Beach GP programme - "Long Beach Grand Prix"
• I know many of you won't have Autosport subscriptions, but this article backs me up, stating the US had the "United States Grand Prix", "Long Beach Grand Prix", "Detroit Grand Prix", "Dallas Grand Prix" and "Caesars Palace Grand Prix" races.
• The Long Beach Grand Prix website says it has been the Long Beach Grand Prix since the beginning.
• Event posters for Watkins Glen - all "United States Grand Prix". No "East".
• Ticket stub for Watkins Glen '77 - again it's the "United States Grand Prix".
• The Watkins Glen website - again, the "United States Grand Prix".
• FORIX has the "United States Grand Prix", "Long Beach Grand Prix", "Detroit Grand Prix", "Dallas Grand Prix" and "Caesars Palace Grand Prix".

Readro (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

these programmes aren't a realible source. Loosmark (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If I may butt in to this discussion a little late, the programmes are most definitely a reliable source. They are produced by the race organisers and that's that - not really open to question at all. FORIX / Autosport is an extremely reliable source as well, because it uses its own contemporary sources. The "official" F1 website is lousy with errors from top to bottom, so official it may be, but reliable it isn't. This has been a problem on numerous occasions. Primary sources such as contemporary publications will always outweigh modern websites that take information from god-knows-where, like F1.com does. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour with Bretonbanquet and Readro. They all make sense and really it is the simplest solution. Chubbennaitor 18:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

you all talk that the Official F1 webpage has errors without providing any evidence whatsoever. not that it would matter since wikipedia is not a place for for original research anyway. the programmes are not realible (we don't know who published them and for what purpose and in those days the local organisers could easily use a name different than FIA etc. etc). apart from that you only seem to have a couple of articles on Autosport. on the other hand we have the Official F1 webpage, tons of other respectable webpages, Autocourse, books about F1, i even remember that the TV called them US East and US West. Loosmark (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Printed "official" books aren't reliable sources, but "I even remember that the TV called them US East and US West" are? The359 (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"Some books" and a 25+ year old memory of someone on the TV? And you question the programmes? You clearly disagree with the rest of us, but this argument isn't going anywhere. I do suggest you do a little research on the official F1 website though. It is OR but at least you'd get the picture that it's full of mistakes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"I do suggest you do a little research on the official F1 website though. It is OR but at least you'd get the picture that it's full of mistakes." i'm sorry but no, you are trying to descredit a reliable source therefore the burden of proof is you on. and frankly speaking i find the thought that the organisation which runs the F1 wouldn't know how their own races were called absurd. Loosmark (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

FOM don't run Formula One races. They have held the commercial rights to them since the mid 1980s (which is later than the period we're interested in). AlexJ (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been in this group long enough to have seen plenty of examples of F1.com being incorrect. Assume good faith. The359 (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Through years of collating results and stats I've found that it's not a particularly reliable source, and no amount of badgering from you is going to get me to change my mind. I'm satisfied that it contains numerous errors and you disagree. I don't have to prove anything to you. I just stated my opinion and that was it. I'm not remotely bothered about what you find absurd - if you want to blindly assume that just because it's official then it must be flawless, then that's your lookout. I suggested you check it out for yourself but maybe you don't do that and prefer to believe what you're told. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

now don't put the words in my mouth i did not say the Official F1 is totaly flawless i'm just saying that when it comes to GP names it is a much more realible source than some flyers. wikipedia can't function if we have people discrediting respectable sources just by saying "i know there are tons of errors and thats that". it will lead to total chaos. Loosmark (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well enough of us have said it, so don't you think there might be some truth behind it? We don't say sources are unreliable for the hell of it, and I don't think WPF1 is approaching total chaos any time soon. You keep dismissing the official GP programmes as "some flyers" - I don't really know why you're doing that. They are the official event programmes and such publications are not in the habit of using the incorrect title for the events they are connected to. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like my above suggestion didn't get much traction, so it looks like I'll have to throw my support behind Readro here. The official programs, published at the time, are primary sources. What is on f1.com, or any other source Loosmark has provided, is either a secondary or a tertiary source (I'm inclined to go with the latter). What you are asking us to do, Loosmark, is disregard what was published at the time, what people accepted then, and instead favour recounts published online more than twenty years later? In this case, the reliability of f1.com is almost irrelevent. f1.com wasn't there at the time. The programs were. Do you want to trust Niki Lauda, or Lewis Hamilton on this one? Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 01:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The official F1 website has been shown to be wrong - frequently, why? Perhaps it should be mention that in the 1970's and 1980's when these races there was no internet, and certainly no official F1 website. The official programmes were published by a variety of publishers to be sure, however they were all commissioned by the Grands Prix themselves, and sold at the races specifically to represent the races to the spectators, why you might believe that these would be wrong just completely stuns me. Formula 1's official website is relatively new, even by internet standard as those within Formula 1's administration had a low opinion of the internet for a very long period of time and an official presence was not established until well over a decade after the internet was popularised, having been involved with AtlasF1 during this period I got to see the transition of opinion up close. It's statistics database has been compiled only recently and within it contains a numbers of errors and myths that have been established and perpetuated over time, and probably compiled by the lowest bidder.

FORIX is the most exhaustively researched and compiled stats resource on the net. Frankly programmes would trump the F1 official website, purely because they were in-period doucments anyway - as Apterygial states - primary sources, but in combination with FORIX it should be enough in my opinion to end any arguement. --Falcadore (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

the only thing that really matters is how the FIA called the event. you seemed to be convinced that the Official F1 webpage is wrong (but presenting zero concrete evidence) however wikipedia is not a place for original research. btw i wonder if somebody has those old races recorded, the starting credits should settle the issue. Loosmark (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify again, the official F1 webpage is NOT connected to the FIA. AlexJ (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Talking of TV, YouTube has highlights of the 1983 'Long Beach' Grand Prix from what sounds like the British Broadcaster [9]. At 4.23 minutes the commentator refers to the race as the 'Long Beach Grand Prix'. Schumi555 (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the FIA Season Review broadcaster - definitely not BBC. But he clearly says Long Beach Grand Prix. Awesome footage - just reminds me of how much better F1 was in those days. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, sorry, before my time :P I just assumed seen as he sounded English. Anyway it does definatley say Long Beach and yeah some great racing! Schumi555 (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have the Motor Sport 1980s archive CD, which may well have a different set of naming conventions. I'm too busy now to check all of the races, but I will do when I have some free time (please feel free to remind me if I forget ;) ).--Diniz(talk) 19:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just quickly checked the WT:F1 archives, they note that Kevin Cogan is listed as Kevin Cogon, Roland Ratzenberger was listed as DNQ in his last F1 race as opposed to DNS, that all Michelin runners Retired from the 2005 USGP as opposed to DNS (this may be more a manipulation than a straight error). It also only gives full GP titles (including title sponsor) from the 2004 season onwards. The site opened in 2003 so probably all their data from periods prior to this is taken from some other source. AlexJ (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And to throw a spanner in the works : "...who will join John Watson for the United States Grand Prix West at Long Beach on April 3..." - Blunsden, John (Mar 26, 1977). "Motor racing: Stuck in Pace's Brabham at Long Beach". The Times. p. 15;.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link).

A period source using the West title: [10] (Times Newspaper, March 20th, 1976). Note however East was not used - every article I checked on Times Digital Archive refers to USGPWest (LB) and USGP (WG). AlexJ (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I was mid-way through changing things over when the objection was raised so I haven't done the Long Beach race yet. Personally, I tend to believe it was the Long Beach Grand Prix but for this race at least, there is evidence of the United States Grand Prix West title, even if it may have been "unofficial". I'm more open to compromise on this one. If the WikiProject wants to keep the United States Grand Prix West title then I'm happy to let it stay. I'm just glad that the races that were obviously wrong have been changed. Readro (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still keen to see the "19xx United States Grand Prix West" articles renamed to "19xx Long Beach Grand Prix", for a couple of reasons. First, as it currently stands, we have "19xx United States Grand Prix West" articles, but no "19xx United States Grand Prix East" articles, i.e. the US GP articles are currently named as follows:

Years	Watkins Glen	Long Beach	Detroit	Caesars Palace	Dallas	Phoenix	Indianapolis
1959-1975	United States GP
1976-1980	United States GP	United States GP West
1981		United States GP West		Caesars Palace GP
1982		United States GP West	Detroit GP	Caesars Palace GP
1983		United States GP West	Detroit GP
1984			Detroit GP		United States GP*
1985-1988			Detroit GP
1989-1991						United States GP
2000-2007							United States GP

* there is a pending "Requested move" to move "1984 United States Grand Prix" to "1984 Dallas Grand Prix" - indicate your support here

which might be confusing to non-experts, and secondly, to reflect the continuity of the event; as I see it, it's been the same event (the "Long Beach Grand Prix") held at the same circuit, all the way from 1975 through to the current day - it just happens that in 1975 the race was run to Formula 5000 rules; from 1976-1983 it was run to Formula One rules and was part of the F1 World Championship and from from 1984 onwards it was run to CART/Champcar rules and was part of that championship. DH85868993 (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If this is what the project wants then I'm happy to make the changes. Readro (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

2008 race report leads

I've just gone round and standardised the race leads, as quite frankly some of them were in a state. I'm planning to work on the 2008 race reports when my Autocourse 2008-09 comes through! Does the standard lead look OK - does anyone disagree with the changes? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

They look fine - its good to have some standardization. I'm going to start working on the 2008 race reports in a couple of days' time, per my insane idea (which I have been dragging around Wikipedia in my signature). I'll start with Brazil, and then work from Australia onwards. At this point I'll mainly use internet sources, but anything Autocourse or any other yearbook has would be a bonus. I learnt a lot from the Belgian GAN, and I think that a few more GAs could only be a good thing for the project. Let me know if you have any problems with how I am doing things, or if you want to help with PRs or anything. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 05:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You @:)(*&*^%%%$^ - I was gonna propose that idea - but didn't know what "response" I would get! =| <continues discussion at talkpage> D.M.N. (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

See, sometimes it takes a wide-eyed newcomer to say the insane stuff and get away with it. Cheers, D.M.N.! Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 21:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've finally got around to reading some of them (better late than never?) The only minor change I would suggest would be to remove the word "car" from the "finished second" part, e.g. in 2008 Australian Grand Prix, I would change "Nick Heidfeld finished second in a BMW Sauber car" to just "Nick Heidfeld finished second in a BMW Sauber". But apart from that I think they're fine. DH85868993 (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's to make it agree to just more than the layman - thus the word "car". D.M.N. (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Country code for the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix

What do we want to use as the "country code" for the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix in results tables etc? "ABU", per {{F1GP}}? Or something else? DH85868993 (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Assuming there is no inherent logic here and we are just taking votes, I vote ABD! Or perhaps ISO 3166-2:AE could be a guide? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 02:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Either works for me, and there doesn't seem to be too many other three-letter codes. ADH, ADB maybe. I'm happy with ABU or ABD though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A question - is Abu Dhabi the equivalent of Scotland in the UK - and United Arab Emirates should be used instead? Clarification only sought. --Falcadore (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we count them as seperate states. I'm more than happy with ABU. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 05:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I prefer ABD more... :D - oahiyeel ^talk 17:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I just saw this from the Abu Dhabi (emirate) article: "Abu Dhabi, officially, the Emirate of Abu Dhabi..." How about EAD? :) - oahiyeel ^talk 17:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

ABU is a good idea. It represents it more in my head. Easier to understand. Chubbennaitor 18:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

ABU is punchy and unambiguous. Readro (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

ABU for me. D.M.N. (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there are a few different suggestions, let's have a vote (in time-honoured fashion):

Abbreviation	Support
ABD	LeaveSleaves, Bretonbanquet, oahiyeel
ABU	Bretonbanquet, Apterygial, Chubbennaitor, Readro, D.M.N., Diniz
ADB
ADH
EAD

I've populated the table based on the above discussion. Please feel free to make any corrections and/or add other suggestions you may have. (oahiyeel, I wasn't sure whether you preferred ABD or EAD, so I put your name against both). The lack of my name in the table indicates that I don't really care what the abbreviation is (just that we decide on one :-) DH85868993 (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like "ABU" it is. Any objections? DH85868993 (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Races "not held" in 2009

I notice that the "List of winners" tables in a few of the "<country> Grand Prix" articles (e.g. French Grand Prix, Canadian Grand Prix) have been updated to list the 2009 race as "Not held" or "Cancelled". Isn't a bit premature to be declaring that races "weren't held" in 2009? I recognise that we're not expecting there to be a French or Canadian Grand Prix in 2009, but they haven't "not been held" yet, if you take my point. On a related topic, for non-current races, do we really need/want a row at the top of the winners table declaring that the race wasn't held for the years after the last running (e.g. "2009-1986 Not held" in the Dutch Grand Prix article)? Noting that such rows will need to be updated every year. My thought would be to fill gaps in the table with "Not held" or "Cancelled" or whatever, but just leave the last running of the race as the top row of the table. DH85868993 (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically, all of the 2009 GPs (so far) are 'not held'. Revert the updates. This can really wait until next season. As for your second proposal, sounds fair enough to me. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 05:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Revert the "not held" bit for 2009. Lets leave the last running of the race as the top row of the table. Readro (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What would be put in there place seeing as we don't know when the next GP will be held. Chubbennaitor 18:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. So, for Dutch Grand Prix, the first row in the table would be 1985, indicating that that was the most recent running of the race. We would update the table if/when the race is ever run again. DH85868993 (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

archiving?

This talk page is getting a little long with a number of inactive sections... Do we have an auto-archiver, or has it been done manually? - oahiyeel ^talk 02:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It is done manually. I was just about to do it, but if you want to, go ahead. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 02:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just done it - up to the end of September. Feel free to restore any active discussions which I've accidentally archived. DH85868993 (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we put in automated archiving, as this would ease the matter for editors. An autoarchive set for discussions that are stale for 30 days is I think sufficient and won't affect discussions. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 10:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. DH85868993 (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Gets my vote. Chubbennaitor 16:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If I'm to be honest I prefer manual archiving. WP:F1 isn't the most active project in the world, and, especially over the winter not many people start discussions. I think if we did start auto-archiving, important discussions over 30+ days that haven't reached consensus will be archived. For a project like WP:F1, I prefer manual archiving so we can decide for ourselves what's resolved and whatnot. D.M.N. (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your point. But I think 30, or maybe 45 if that's more appropriate in terms of shelf life of a topic on this project, is sufficient grace period for a topic to get resolved. And that's 30 days after the last comment has been made. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

2008 Brazilian Grand Prix PR

The above article has now been listed for Peer Review here. Feel free to converge on the article in large numbers and tell me what a doofus I am for writing such a crap article (I think that's what a PR is...) Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 11:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

...And it's now up for GA. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 14:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Standings after the race" table formatting

I notice that in many of the race report articles, the top row of the points tables in the "Standings after the race" section are bolded. Is that necessary? I've removed the bolding from a few articles, but I thought I'd check there was consensus before doing the rest (since there are quite a few). I think I know how the bolding originated - I think these "Standings after the race" tables were first added to a couple of late-season articles where the championships had already been decided, and the bolding was intended to identify the Champions. And then when tables were added to other articles, the formatting was copied. So I guess a supplementary question is: Do we want to retain the bolding for races where the Champions have already been decided? (I'd probably recommend against that, as it might cause confusion in the future). DH85868993 (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going suggest making winners bold, but since you have raised your point that doesn't seem like such a good idea. I'd agree with your changes, it is just confusing to continue like that. So to the supplementary question, no, remove the bold lines there as well. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 08:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, remove boldness. I think someone raised the question "Why bold?" in one of the Japan 1995 PR's (can't remember who) - so yep, doesn't really add anything my being bold. Same goes for bit about champions - no bolding as well. D.M.N. (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've removed all the bolding. DH85868993 (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Cooper T43

An editor has recently created Cooper T43 as a redirect to Patsy Burt. Despite the fact that the Patsy Burt article contains a photo of a T43, I think the redirect is inappropriate, because plenty of other more famous drivers (e.g. Stirling Moss, Jack Brabham, etc) also drove T43s. Does anyone the knowledge/resources and enthusiasm to convert the redirect into (at least a stub) article? Or should I nominate the redirect for deletion? DH85868993 (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Failing the creation of an actual article, a redirect to Cooper Car Company makes more sense. The359 (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dashing out a formulaic stub seemed easiest. --Falcadore (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Circuito de Jerez

There is an error with the name. Now the article is "Circuito Permanente de Jerez" (Jerez Permanent Circuit). That is a old name, using for a few years to diferenciate this circuit to the Urban circuit on the South of the city. They using "Circuito Permanente de Alta Velocidad de Jerez" (High speed permanent circuit of Jerez) too. The Urban circuit is not exist now, and the Circuit is called "Circuito de Jerez" just. the Here is the official web, here a page with info of the city hall and this is a last info in the most popular newspaper of the city (in the first line "Todo está listo en el Circuito de Jerez para albergar la resolución de la primera edición del campeonato internacional Superleague Formula."). Therefore should be moved to Circuito de Jerez. --Mao Zaluchi^(talk) 18:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Formula One tyres

Can someone more technically inclined than I write a section at the above article explaining the differences between the tyres (i.e. wet, extreme wet, intermediates, soft dry, hard dry etc.). I'm writing the 2008 race reports at the moment and I don't really know what I can link to and not have to superficially explain the differences in the reports. Cheers in advance, Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 11:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well dry are either hard-hard, soft-option; intermediate-wet; wet-extreme wet; extreme wet-doesn't exist. Chubbennaitor 18:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to start using modern terminology then... At each GP there are two dry tyre choices: prime (the harder compound) and option (the softer compound). There are then two wet weather tyre options: wet (what used to be termed "intermediate", for drizzle and drying track conditions) and extreme wet (what used to be termed "full wet", for deluges and large areas of standing water). Things get harder to comprehend as the precise compound of the prime and option tyres varies from race to race, depending on the anticipated track conditions. Thus a compound that might be used as a "prime" tyre at a low tyre wear track may become an "option" compound at a high wear rate track. "Soft" and "hard" compound are therefore only relative terms in modern racing. Pyrope 20:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Incidentally, aren't they also making the performance gap between the prime and option tyres bigger next season, Pyrope? --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 20:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about that. I know Bridgestone are altering the compounds to allow for the fact that tyre warmers are to be banned, but whether that will result in a greater difference between hard and soft I don't know. I'll keep a look out for something concrete though. Pyrope 20:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't the ban on tyre warmers later reversed?--Diniz(talk) 23:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I right in saying that teams choose from four types of dry tyre for each race? i.e. 'very soft', 'soft', 'hard' and 'very hard' type of thing? But only take two to each race? Forgive me if I am talking rubbish! I thought I heard something along those lines on British TV. Schumi555 (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what I heard too. But I asked here because I did not believe that I could add the bit to the article properly. The fact that it spawned this debate :) is testament to the fact that there are those who know more about tyres than I. The above article as it stands is fairly sparse... Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 00:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Bridgestone decides which two of the five dry weather compounds to bring. The359 (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Donington park new layout

There is a discussion on Donington Park's talk page about the new layout and a new map for us. Chubbennaitor 18:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Official Grand Prix posters

I recently came across this section of a website, which has a wide selction of official promotional posters for old Grands Prix. I was wondering if, in your opinion, an official event poster would make a suitable addition to a high-standard Grand Prix article (these two, for instance), and if they would be covered by a claim of fair use. Any thoughts?--Diniz(talk) 17:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent connection of posters. However, I'm concerned about addition of such images under WP:NFCC policy #8 which states:

Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Now under this criterion, I think it might not be necessary to add poster image to an article, since it's not exactly an important part of race description. Of course if an article has significant portion that dedicates itself to race's marketing and/or promotion, a poster image could be a good addition. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Formula One World Champion succession boxes

I noticed this recent change to the Formula One World Champion succession box in Kimi Räikkönen. Personally, I think it was better the way it was, i.e. I think it makes more sense to link the whole term "Formula One World Champion" to the List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions article. What do others think? (Similar changes have been made to Fernando Alonso and Alain Prost). DH85868993 (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It probably does make sense to make two links: one to Formula One and the other a pipe to List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions. As the changes stand they go to World Champion, which is a bit of a redundant link in my opinion. So this would be my optimal succession box name: Formula One World Champion. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 05:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, there is just no distinction - you can't tell where the border of the two links are unless watching closely. Pick one and stick to it. If people want other information there are other links. --Falcadore (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This change will be made. If I change the boxes would you prefer (a) World Champion or World Drivers Champion or (b) Formula One or Formula One linked to season year? Opinions sought. Britmax (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I really dislike two part links, where links are split up into component bits with no easy way of distinguishing between bits of a link. The topic title is "Formula One World Driver Champions" not "Formula One": "World Drivers Champions".[11] In addition it's pointless having a link to Formula One, when several links already exist earlier in the article and "Formula One" is such a broad article, when a more specific one exists. The succession is for F1 world drivers champions, so the logical link is [[List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions|Formula One World Champion]] Would BBC Radio 2 be split into "BBC" "Radio Two"? Microsoft Office into "Microsoft" "Office"? AlexJ (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, keep it simple. Pyrope 14:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Readro (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I wasn't too passionate about my idea really. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 23:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I notice a lot of these confusing two-stage links are being added across a lot of motorsport succession boxes, not just Formula 1, needlessly turning the word champion into a separate link. User:Britmax could you please revert all those changes please? I really don't think readers need their hand held to the extent that they need a common use term like champion wikilinked. --Falcadore (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)