Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 34
 | This non-existent page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
Red Bull Ring
Hey guys,
This isn't directly related to any present discussion, but there isn't a WikiProject for Formula 2. Overnight, the Formula 2 calendar for 2011 has been revealed, and it shows that the series will be visiting the Österreichring. Edits have been made to include a circuit diagram for a proposed extension to the western side of the circuit, and there is no clear indication that these extensions have been made. The official Formula 2 website (http://www.formulatwo.com/2011-calendar.aspx) says it has not, but there is a chance that might be outdated because there is no clear aerial shot of an updated circuit. I was wodnering if someone could help me out with confirming its existence or not, since the Österreichring and the A1 Ring were once a part of Formula 1. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know whether there have been changes made or not (I would guess there probably have been) but it might be best to add it onto this discussion: Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Motorsport#Red Bull Ring vs. Österreichring. - mspete93 15:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
A new mess with names on the horizon
Just read this: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/87936, do I understand this correctly that Renault is going to merge with Lotus or something? Dr. Loosmark 16:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Renault (car company) are going to get out of the team Renault F1, allowing team owners Genii Capital to look for new partner, which will be Group Lotus, which has nothing to do with Lotus Racing. Lotus Racing may have to change name to 1Malaysia F1 Team or something like that. Whatever happens, wait until we get some confirmation of some sort. - mspete93 17:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok but then what are we going to do with the Renault F1 article? If Renault gets out then that's basically a different team. Dr. Loosmark 17:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- ...And it will require a new article - However, some are saying it will be Lotus-Renault. This could be the constructor-engine name like RBR-Renault or it could actually be the team name. If Renault were to remain in some way it could be argued it is the same team - we will have to wait and see. There's no rush, we have until March to get it right. - mspete93 17:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- It could be complicated, but as MSP says, we've got plenty of time. It depends how much of a stake Renault continue to have in the Renault team, if any, or if they're just engine suppliers. If the Renault team becomes (Group) Lotus-Renault, we'd have a problem with it potentially being a continuation of both Team Lotus and Renault F1, which could be awkward. I think a new article would be simplest in any case. Lotus Racing would have to change their name, I'm sure - Renault want to have a road-car tie-in with Proton, as well as this possible Lotus-Renault F1 business, so I'd be willing to bet that Renault have told Mr Fernandes that if he wants Renault engines in his F1 cars, he has to sell the Team Lotus name to Group Lotus-Proton. That way there'd be one Lotus, wholly tied in with Proton, with the Renault connection as well. I heard a rumour they wanted Senna to drive their second car too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- ...And it will require a new article - However, some are saying it will be Lotus-Renault. This could be the constructor-engine name like RBR-Renault or it could actually be the team name. If Renault were to remain in some way it could be argued it is the same team - we will have to wait and see. There's no rush, we have until March to get it right. - mspete93 17:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok but then what are we going to do with the Renault F1 article? If Renault gets out then that's basically a different team. Dr. Loosmark 17:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Folks, this is all pure guesswork at present. This is not the place to discuss the possible future of any Formula One team, just hold your horses until something is made official. Pyrope 19:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, technically it's a loose discussion on what to do with the articles, but I take your point. It's a bit early. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Think this sums up the situation quite well: [1] Dr. Loosmark 19:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I like that. Here is a slightly more journalistic take on the issue: Peter Windsor talking to Dave Hunt.—User:MDCollins (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject cleanup listing
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Number of entries for Fangio
Until recently, Juan Manuel Fangio's infobox showed "Races: 52 (51 starts)" (i.e. 52 entries, 51 starts), which matches what it says in List of Formula One drivers and List of Formula One driver records. But his results table only shows 51 races and no non-starts. So what is/was his other race entry? Note that FORIX, ChicaneF1 and formula1.com all credit Fangio with "51 entries/races", with no mention of any non-starts. DH85868993 (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- That would probably be his DNQ at Indy in 1958. Why all the sources pretend he wasn't there, I don't know. Bretonbanquet (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Of course. I've added it into his results table and reverted the infobox change. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Marussia/Virgin
We're having a bit of a dispute over at 2011 Formula One season. I've moved Marussia Virgin up in the drivers/teams table because Marussia is the majority shareholder and Virgin is the title sponsor. Some people are moving it back because Virgin is the constuctor. However, Virgin is only the constructor because they purchased the naming rights to Manor Grand Prix, who submitted the original entry. Marussia have purchased a controlling stake in Manor, which makes them the constructor, whilst Virgin is the title sponsor. I'm hoping someone can resolve the dispute because people are already taking it upon themselves to pass absolute judgement and it might get a little nasty. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Marussia have purchased a controlling stake in Manor, which makes them the constructor, whilst Virgin is the title sponsor.
- There's the problem. None of the sources say Marussia have bought a controlling stake in anything; even if they had, it wouldn't make them the constructor (and there are no sources for it), and there's also no source to say that Virgin have been demoted to title sponsor. Without sources we don't change anything. That Russian source that says they are a "new team" should be junked. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9178539.stm
- This one. I used it in the very article. Reference #48, I believe. It says that "Virgin Racing have secured their place on the Formula 1 grid until 2014 after Russian carmaker Marussia Motors bought a controlling interest in the team." Virgin were oly ever a title sponsor, anyway. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to say the unpopular thing and instead of acting within seconds of magazine soft news hitting the web, that we wait until the parties concerned clarify the situation for us, that way we don't make guesses, which we aren't supposed to anyway.
- Is it really so painful to wait? Wikipedia does not have to act straightaway, because... WP:NOTNEWS. --Falcadore (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. Anyway, the BBC have been very unjournalistic about it and just taken the Russian guy's word for it - nobody at Virgin has said it's a controlling interest, and the source even says the size of the stake is undisclosed. In any case, Virgin are NOT just a title sponsor, they are the named constructor. We all know that, regardless of what some apparent dunce at the BBC says. Nobody is saying anywhere that Marussia will be the constructor in 2011. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Disagree Bretonbanquet there's an article on virgin racing's website which confirm that they have taken a controlling stake in the team. Instead of slamming the BBC and other news outlets and posting here perhaps you should read virgin's news section read this before you forge an opinion http://www.virginracing.com/news/220/marussia-virgin-racing (Wiki id2(talk) 19:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC))
- You haven't even read that, have you? It does not confirm that at all. Maybe you should think a bit harder before lecturing other editors. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Wikiid2 - the article on Virgin's site doesn't say that Marussia have a controlling stake. It says in one place that they have a "significant shareholding" and in another that they have "the significant shareholding". The second one might be taken to mean that they are the majority shareholders, but is extremely ambiguous (and reads like a typo). 4u1e (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
As has been stated on the 2011 talk page, none of this talk of the percentage of stake actually applies. If I went out tomorrow and bought 100% of Ferrari you wouldn't shift the team around in the table to fit my name because I am not a constructor. Marussia can buy all of Virgin, all of Lotus and all of McLaren, but as the table is sorted by constructor and not owner, nothing would change. Or are we putting RBR and Toro Rosso under 'R' for Red Bull who owns both teams?
What Virgin, Manor or Marussia say is inconsequential anyway, the constructor is determined by the FIA on their official entry list. Virgin appear on that list, Marussia do not. Until they do, they are not a Formula 1 constructor. For previous examples see Sauber Ferrari/BMW Sauber Ferrari this year and Midland F1/Spyker Midland F1. -- Iscariot (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
F1 results table for drivers
I know that normally we add the F1 results for the drivers just before the season starts e.g. say that I add the Complete Formula One results for 2011 F1 season in Kobayashi's article know. Does it really make a difference if we add it before the season or know. The shedule etc. has been confirmed so have the dates so should we add them know. I mean I know it's orthrodox for us to do it just before the season starts but instead of the headache shouldn't we just do it know and get it out of the way??? (Wiki id2(talk) 19:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC))
- No. It's crystal balling to a huge degree. A number of things could, and often do change before the season starts. "Getting it out of the way" is no reason to do it, and it turns out it's no headache whatsoever. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah it makes a difference. Having a large blank table is just sloppy editting and a poor look in general. Why is it so hard to wait? --Falcadore (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- You can put it in now, and comment it out with the <!-- --> tags, which has the advantage of stopping other editors from repeatedly trying to add the new row too early.--Midgrid(talk) 21:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Except that you can't do that directly as there will be more races next year than there were this, so therefore every other row and all the headers will need to be adjusted also. Having to go back through and de-comment all that would be quite a bit of work in itself. Just wait. Pyrope 05:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- You can put it in now, and comment it out with the <!-- --> tags, which has the advantage of stopping other editors from repeatedly trying to add the new row too early.--Midgrid(talk) 21:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The article Jordan EJ14 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- A search for references found only a single published (gBooks) reference to this vehicle, fails WP:V and WP:N
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Refs have been added and prod has been removed (not by me). DH85868993 (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The article Juan Jover has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- A search for references did not find published (gBooks) support for a "Juan Jover" born in 1903 meeting WP:N, fails WP:V. There are several articles in other languages most are unreferenced, one has a link to photo and one looks like it has references, but none of the reference contain "Jover"
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- FYI - these two just came up in alphabetical order, I am not targeting your project JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Removed prod - I'll find some refs somewhere, it shouldn't be difficult. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
DNAs
Over the past few days, about 20-30 F1 driver articles have had some "DNA" (i.e. "did not arrive") results added to their results tables. Which prompts a few questions:
- should these additional races be added to the "Races" value in the driver's infobox (and/or the driver's number of entries in List of Formula One drivers and List of Formula One driver records - presumably in order for a driver to "not arrive" at a race they must have originally been entered in the race?) Noting however that in the majority of cases, our current "Races" values match the values quoted at FORIX, ChicaneF1, etc. But also noting that FORIX records "appearances" rather than "entries".
- if the addition of a DNA has resulted in an extra year being added to the results table, should the extra year be listed in the "Active years" field in the infobox (and the "Seasons" fields in List of Formula One drivers and List of Formula One driver records)?
- should the "DNA"s be added to the results tables of the relevant race reports?
Discuss. DH85868993 (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- 1) If the "races" value is deemed to be entries, then I'd suggest they should be added (as the drivers were indeed entered in the race). 2) If these extra races are added to the races/entries total, then the years/seasons should probably be amended. 3) I'd suggest they should be added to the results tables of the race reports - in fact, the reason why I added these DNAs was due to seeing one in the 1950 British Grand Prix report.
- N.B. My source for the DNAs is http://www.statsf1.com/ - where, on the results pages, it has that the driver has withdrawn, with the reason given as "not present". I added them (although some were already there) so that you can see that a driver has intended to race, but in the end did not participate at all. «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is much more difficult than it looks. In many situations, a driver's entry might have been withdrawn, so he wasn't on later entry lists. So should the event be included in his stats or not? In many cases, a driver may have entered two races on the same day, and picked which one to visit at the last minute. I don't agree with replacing "WD" with "DNA" because they are two different things. Whether a driver actively withdraws or just doesn't turn up - they are obviously distinct. Sometimes a driver withdraws his entry, and sometimes he pulls out of the event without actually cancelling his entry. How to differentiate between these is a minefield, probably beyond the scope of Wikipedia. I also don't think statsF1 is a very good source. Multiple sources have to be used with this kind of research (because that's what it is) in order for it to be anything like accurate. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- List of Formula One drivers table has Entries and Starts, also DNAs are listed at some Teams and drivers tables in seasons articles, for example Tony Lanfranchi, who is at 1969 and 1968, but not at List of Formula One drivers and his article doesn't have Championship Formula One results table or infobox, so it's inconsistent. --Sporti (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- You've just shed light on something I'd not noticed before. Lanfranchi is on the list of participants in the WDC for '69. Why? He never took part in a Championship race, which is the reason why he has no Championship results table or infobox on his article, and why he's not on the main list of F1 drivers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Lanfranchi is listed because he was entered into a championship race in each of those seasons. «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- So was his entry removed from the entry list (in which case he has no place in the article) or did he just not turn up? Uh.. we have no idea, and nor does anyone else. We're getting into seriously obscure minutiae here, and it's not something to just copy off a website. Also, why on earth is he in one table and not the other? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Lanfranchi is listed because he was entered into a championship race in each of those seasons. «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- You've just shed light on something I'd not noticed before. Lanfranchi is on the list of participants in the WDC for '69. Why? He never took part in a Championship race, which is the reason why he has no Championship results table or infobox on his article, and why he's not on the main list of F1 drivers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Friday drivers
I notice a number of 2006 GP articles have acquired a section titled Friday drivers which contains a table listing Friday test drivers and which team they drove for, and nothing else. The majority of these sections contain no further explanation. What is it there for? I've put Technical tags on them since there is no real explanation what it is there for that the average reader could understand. I would like to see them removed as the seem to add nothing to the artcle and there is no context to them being there. --Falcadore (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Marina Bay Street Circuit
This image does not contain the names of turn 1 (Sheares Corner), turn 7 (Memorial Corner) and turn 10 (Singapore Sling). Is a member of this WikiProject able to add the three names in that image? --Gamma127 (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- They are unofficial names. The circuit plan doesn't need them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- The names were selected a
few monthyear ago. So they are no unofficial names. --Gamma127 (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- The names were selected a
- Still failing to see why they are so neccessary to the article. I've never heard them referred to by those names before. Not in the commentary, not in any literature on the subject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- You could see that they are official names on the circuit diagram at formula1.com. --Gamma127 (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Official" and "formula1.com" sometimes bear only passing resemblance to one another... However, Wikipedia's conventions are determined by the Common Names policy, so if that is what those corners are called by a reasonable number of recognised, reliable and authoritative sources then by all means include them on the circuit diagram, just so long as it doesn't clutter the image and make it harder, not easier, to understand as some of the newer crop of diagrams seem to be. Pyrope 16:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I know the problems with formula1.com. But these names are official since 2009. I only have german references about the competition. ([2], [3]) --Gamma127 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Pyrope, I've usually only heard them referred to as turns one, seven and ten. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- You aren't a source though... ;-) As ever (and I seem to say this a lot on here) if you can find sufficient, independent, reliable, notable sources for information then we can include it. We are not in the business of telling the world how it should be, we are here to explain how it is. If these names are in widespread use (and frankly I haven't had a proper look about but I have at least head of the Singapore Sling corner; wasn't it named by a public competition or something?) then we need to at least explain which corners they are referring to. Ignoring terms in popular usage just because they aren't official is anti-encyclopedic. If terms are in widespread use but are unofficial then that can be noted. Pyrope 17:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I know I'm not a source. What I mean is that I've never heard the corners referred to by name by the commentators. Maybe they did it once or twice, but it was certainly never on a regular basis. When the drivers were complaining about the chicane, articles like those run on Autosport referred to it as the "turn ten chicane", not the "Singapore Sling". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Drivers don't make for good references with regards to corners. They learn the circuits by corner numbers for ease of understanding over the radio as much as anything else. Best source might be a Singapore GP programme. --Falcadore (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking more the words of the actual article than a quote from the drivers. For example, the article might have been written soemthing like this -- "Drivers at the Singapore Grand Prix have raised concerns of high kerbs around the circuit particularly at the turn ten chicane ..." Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure I heard the Memorial Corner name used on the BBC coverage at some point over the three -day-event this year... Not 100% sure though... Orphan Wiki 23:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Seasonal articles for constructors?
Hi WP:F1. I've been thinking about this over the past few days. I'm not formally a member of the wikiproject (nor do I think I will officially become one, for whatever reason), but would there be scope for team seasonal articles? Other sports already do this: 2010–11 Liverpool F.C. season; 2010 Philadelphia Phillies season; 2010–11 St. Louis Blues season, so why not an article on 2010 Virgin Racing season (for example)? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 10:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm. It would provide a place for team specific information that it is too specific for the team's main article and/or the F1 season article. For example you could follow the updates to the car/race results/events on and off the track for a specific team in a logical way that is currently not possible. i.e. the alternative is reading every single race article. I look forward to other comments. Mark83 (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd strongly suggest not (but of course it's not for me to decide!). Between the season, race, driver, team and car articles, is there really any notable detail for which we do not have space? I think the real problem is that our overall season articles tend to be simple lists of results and team, driver and rule changes, and not a narrative of the season in question. A better solution (in my eyes) would be to improve these: note that we have no GA or FA season articles. The majority of the driver, car and team articles could also be far better in terms of telling the story of their subjects. 4u1e (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- (Having said that, Pyrope made an excellent point a while back about not needing permission from the project to create articles! And there is always the suggestion that we be bold. 4u1e (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
- Personally, I don't think it's necessary - the team articles and the car articles should cover all that goes on during a season. I think it would be verging on overkill, but I don't feel particularly strongly about it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- My feelings mirror Bretonbanquet's. I am also a bit concerned that if we create them for some teams for some seasons (i.e. where there's something meaningful to describe), then one day someone will take it upon themselves to decide that we need them for all teams for every season and we'll wake up one morning to find 300 stub articles that we then need to manage. DH85868993 (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm with 4u1e, that's some seriously erudite and thoughtful comment there. They are clearly a discerning judge of character and should be listened to on all topics. (Sorry, sat bored out of my skull in the Maple Leaf lounge at Vancouver airport, slightly drunk on free gin. Anyway...) Pyrope 23:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Free gin?! No economy class travel for you, then... ;) 4u1e (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sadly, no. Just more economy class travel than is good for one person in a lifetime. Pyrope 01:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Free gin?! No economy class travel for you, then... ;) 4u1e (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm with 4u1e, that's some seriously erudite and thoughtful comment there. They are clearly a discerning judge of character and should be listened to on all topics. (Sorry, sat bored out of my skull in the Maple Leaf lounge at Vancouver airport, slightly drunk on free gin. Anyway...) Pyrope 23:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- My feelings mirror Bretonbanquet's. I am also a bit concerned that if we create them for some teams for some seasons (i.e. where there's something meaningful to describe), then one day someone will take it upon themselves to decide that we need them for all teams for every season and we'll wake up one morning to find 300 stub articles that we then need to manage. DH85868993 (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't think it's necessary - the team articles and the car articles should cover all that goes on during a season. I think it would be verging on overkill, but I don't feel particularly strongly about it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- (Having said that, Pyrope made an excellent point a while back about not needing permission from the project to create articles! And there is always the suggestion that we be bold. 4u1e (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
- I'd strongly suggest not (but of course it's not for me to decide!). Between the season, race, driver, team and car articles, is there really any notable detail for which we do not have space? I think the real problem is that our overall season articles tend to be simple lists of results and team, driver and rule changes, and not a narrative of the season in question. A better solution (in my eyes) would be to improve these: note that we have no GA or FA season articles. The majority of the driver, car and team articles could also be far better in terms of telling the story of their subjects. 4u1e (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated the 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix article for featured status. Please feel free to voice your support, opposition, or to otherwise leave comments here.--Midgrid(talk) 20:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Ferrari's 800th Grand Prix
There has been discussion at Talk:2010 Turkish Grand Prix and Talk:2010 Canadian Grand Prix about whether Ferrari's 800th Grand Prix was actually the 2010 Turkish GP (as self-identified by Ferrari) or the 2010 Canadian GP (per the calculation at Talk:2010 Turkish Grand Prix). I thought it made sense to consolidate the discussion here, since it potentially affects several articles. As mentioned at Talk:2010 Turkish Grand Prix, exactly when you reach 800 races depends on how you count, e.g. whether you count races for the Ferrari team, or for Ferrari as a constructor; whether or not you include NART entries; whether or not you include races where the Ferraris practised but didn't start (e.g. the 1982 Belgian GP), whether or not you include the 1952 Indianapolis 500 (which was a WDC round but not a "Grand Prix" per se), etc.
On a related note, I think the Scuderia Ferrari article actually requires two infoboxes - one for "Scuderia Ferrari the team" and one for "Ferrari as a constructor" (similar to the two infoboxes in Team Lotus) - the stats in the two boxes would be similar but not identical. Likewise for McLaren and WilliamsF1. Discuss. DH85868993 (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I'm tempted to side with what Ferrari are saying, purely on the notion they (should) know how many races they have competed in. I would imagine a race is not being counted somewhere, which is why it is calculated as Canada.
- Agreed on having two infoboxes, customer cars stats need to be separate from the team stats. QueenCake (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- QueenCake, in Ferrari's case, it's easier to count absences rather than presences at GPs. See details on the absences at Talk:2010 Turkish Grand Prix. So in this case it wouldn't be under-counting, but rather over-counting that you are alleging. I therefore would challenge you to check the list of 28 absences yourself and find the one which was not an absence.
- With respect to the "WDC round" vs. "Grand Prix" distinction, I don't think it's a real issue here. In almost all cases of counting WC statistics, it makes sense to implicitly or explicitly identify events as races, not just Grands Prix, to avoid this exact confusion. I believe the neutral term race is what's most appropriate to F1 championships, since indeed not every race's status was a Grand Prix (as exemplified by Indy-500 races). Nevertheless, there's no controversy when mentioning that F1 has 839 GPs so far in the 61-year history of World Championships (with the term Grand Prix when used obviously being a synonym for WC round). So unless one is a stickler for such minor details (in which case I'd strongly recommend using the unambiguous terms race or event to avoid confusion), let's focus discussion on Ferrari's 800th race in the World Championships.
- The main reason I mentioned the "WDC round" versus "Grand Prix" distinction is that many of the external references discussing the event (e.g. this one) use the term "800th Grand Prix" and we need to be sure whether they actually mean "800th Grand Prix" or "800th WDC round". (My guess is they probably mean "800th WDC round", but it's not 100% clear). DH85868993 (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, it's usual and customary to use terms WDC round and Grand Prix interchangeably. So in a common speak, I don't think most people (including most in Ferrari team itself, who made the original announcement) would be able to tell the subtle difference.
- On the other hand, adding Indy-52 to the list of absences would only decrease the number of races contested by Ferrari, which would have postponed 800th GP to an even later race. So I don't think this is something that alone could explain Turkey-10 being the 800th race.
- cherkash (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Invoking WP:OR and WP:VERIFIABILITY, DH was correct when he said that the best solution is to simply say that "Ferrari identified the 2010 Turkish GP as their 800th". And that's all we need, unless there's a reliable source somewhere that identifies a different race (there may be). Cherkash, your calculations may well be right, but ultimately we're looking for verifiability, not truth. 4u1e (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with applicability of both objections. Number of GPs contested is a simple calculation based on other primary data to which objections may be applicable: namely individual GP results/participations in this case. So you should raise your objections with respect to that data, if you feel it's warranted. In the absence of such objections, counting the number of GPs contested is a trivial exercise — the one that's in fact done routinely by, e.g., increasing the counters by one after every race in driver's/team's/etc. articles. If you really feel like going that route, then most statistics listed on wiki's pages become suspect in the same way, and we should remove them from there absent some external source explicitly mentioning every individual stat numbers after each Grand Prix.cherkash (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Simply having facts and calculations based on your own criteria does not mean you can dispute a reliable source. It's not our place to say whose statistics are more correct. The359 (Talk) 19:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I know the temptation to give the 'right' answer, believe me - but if the situation is so clear cut that we can rely on primary evidence (which seems to be your argument), then surely there's no debate about the correct answer? I suggest digging around and finding a reliable source that agrees with your calculation - I can easily imagine (say) Nigel Roebuck pointing out an inaccuracy in Ferrari's position; Mike Lawrence (I think) did something similar over at Pitpass regarding the so-called "60th anniversary of F1". 4u1e (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Simply having facts and calculations based on your own criteria does not mean you can dispute a reliable source. It's not our place to say whose statistics are more correct. The359 (Talk) 19:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with applicability of both objections. Number of GPs contested is a simple calculation based on other primary data to which objections may be applicable: namely individual GP results/participations in this case. So you should raise your objections with respect to that data, if you feel it's warranted. In the absence of such objections, counting the number of GPs contested is a trivial exercise — the one that's in fact done routinely by, e.g., increasing the counters by one after every race in driver's/team's/etc. articles. If you really feel like going that route, then most statistics listed on wiki's pages become suspect in the same way, and we should remove them from there absent some external source explicitly mentioning every individual stat numbers after each Grand Prix.cherkash (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Invoking WP:OR and WP:VERIFIABILITY, DH was correct when he said that the best solution is to simply say that "Ferrari identified the 2010 Turkish GP as their 800th". And that's all we need, unless there's a reliable source somewhere that identifies a different race (there may be). Cherkash, your calculations may well be right, but ultimately we're looking for verifiability, not truth. 4u1e (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- cherkash (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- The359, I agree. But one should be able to make corrections to even a reliable source when one spots errors in that source. Good example: a lot of books re-print either the results of individual Grands Prix or combined statistics, and a fairly large percentage of these books make at least some errors in the process of doing so — either due to failed proof-reading, or simply due to propagation of errors from sources the authors used. Does it mean those errors should not be fixed? And moreover, does it mean that those errors should from that point on be treated as an untouchable new truth — simply because the book can be cited as a source — to be further propagated and quoted? I don't think so, and I doubt you think so either.
- So then it's definitely a reasonable task for an editor of any encyclopedia to get those errors straightened out and fixed — and indeed the task that's expected of the editor — editors of Wikipedia not being an exception. cherkash (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- 4u1e, I'm still to hear any debate about the subject itself. All arguments that were brought up so far were revolving around OR and use of sources, rather than about the subject matter. cherkash (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- And that's deliberate on my part. Unless we are content that this is an issue we should settle from first principles, then it's pointless debating them. This is different to the simple errors that we would correct without question (despite what formula1.com says, Johnny Herbert did not drive a Lotus in at the 1994 Japanese Grand Prix!), in that it depends on interpretation: do you include the NART races? Why? If you want to get really picky (I don't), Ferrari's statement that they have entered 800 Formula 1 World Championship Grands Prix is unquestionably wrong as pointed out above: 16 of them were not Formula One races, and one of those wasn't a Grand Prix either. Same applies to your alternative total. More to the point, Ferrari arrived at their total somehow, so there is at least one other way of stacking up the numbers. But I don't want to get into a debate over which total is 'correct'. I come back to my previous point: if the total is obviously wrong, there should be a reliable source mentioning it as there was for the similar confusion over the Williams total recently. 4u1e (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- 4u1e, the mention of the debate or absence thereof was yours to begin with (quoting you: "surely there's no debate about the correct answer?"). So I was simply replying to that: yes, unfortunately there was no debate so far here in this forum.
- As for the wider forums, yes indeed, the Ferrari's claim was not widely contested (although it was contested in some private and semi-private forums). The press was simply regurgitating the so-called "facts" put forward by Scuderia Ferrari (even if in good faith), and now you and others seem to allude to those statements as if they were establishing those alleged facts. I disagreed with exactly that (relying on widely-disseminated statements when evidence suggests otherwise), and I insist on carefully considering the matter instead of alluding to the simple lack of widely-published sources questioning the subject (I do question them — and so should you). Remember, simply repeating something many times over, doesn't make it true. And so the only reasonable way to establish the facts in this case is from the first principles, just like you suggested. This was my intention from the very beginning, and that's why I posted the detailed listing of the 28 absences of Ferrari's team. Let me re-post it here again, so you can examine them yourself — see if you will agree with me: UK50–FRA50–UK59–USA60–USA61–FRA62–USA62–SAF62–UK66–MEX66–SAF67–MON68–GER69–HOL73–GER73–AUT76–BEL82–SUI82, and 10 INDYs (50–51,53–60).
- Here's probably the subtlest point of the count—and the reason why the Ferrari's count wasn't widely contested: France-50. All the sources I've seen that support Ferrari's count do not list this race as their absence. And you can easily see why: it's hard to make a distinction between Ferrari the team, and Ferrari the privateer in those early years of F1, unless you are acutely aware of the difference and the significance it may make in counting the races towards the team's participation. To suggest a potential source of why it's mostly overlooked: most tables that list GP results will just list a make of every car without mentioning the respective entrant, so it's hard to notice that Ferrari 125 as entered by Peter Whitehead in France-50 was actually not entered by Scuderia Ferrari but by a privateer, and all the Scuderia's cars were not present at the race (despite being entered). So I'm not surprised at all that Ferrari's count in Turkey was not widely contested: the error was so subtle that it was simply overlooked. The same, by the way, goes for the claim of Belgium-04 being Ferrari's 700th race — it was their 699th. cherkash (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but you're only partially quoting me: "if the situation is so clear cut that we can rely on primary evidence ... then surely there's no debate about the correct answer?" (emphasis added). I should have made myself clearer: the situation is obviously not clear cut, because Ferrari came up with a different answer to you. Since the situation is not unarguable, it is not appropriate for us to conduct original research. I do understand that your calculation is most likely correct, although I suspect you feel I don't, but I feel that for the specific medium of Wikipedia it represents a step too far in correcting facts via our own research. I'll make my final words on this: "verifiability, not truth". Best Regards. 4u1e (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- It looks to me that we mostly agree on the actual subject. I also agree with your "verifiability, not truth", but this phrase — like any short slogan — may at times be misleading due to its brevity. Let me explain. E.g., you and I may be able to verify that 1+1=2 (within some mutually accepted system of axioms and rules) and verifying that is trivial, as long as we have checked that we both operate within the same system of axioms and rules. So as long as we agree what we mean here on WPF1 by "participations" and "starts", we should be able to check the numbers and agree on them based purely on individual race results (even if in practice it's a tedious exercise) by doing 1+1+1+... — this is not an original research, and verifiability directly follows from verifiability of individual race results. So I'm not striving here to introduce any OR, but to aggregate and synthesize (in a very trivial and non-contradictory way) the results to which no-one raised any objections.
- Now, the contradiction between what I claim and what Ferrari claims may be (as mentioned above) due to several reasons, including also a simple possibility of using different definitions of what constitutes a Ferrari start. We specifically discussed participations of Scuderia Ferrari (i.e., the team) as opposed to Ferrari cars. Ferrari team in their statement on the other hand, have likely counted all Ferrari cars participations. As I mentioned above, Whitehead's private entry in France-50 may as well be the one responsible for discrepancy. So if there's any doubt as to what definition is right in the context of WPF1, we can (re-)open that discussion, but it seems we do already agree on the definition — and according to this definition we agree on the number of Scuderia Ferrari starts being 811 so far.
- I really hope this clarifies that we don't have any further disagreements. cherkash (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but you're only partially quoting me: "if the situation is so clear cut that we can rely on primary evidence ... then surely there's no debate about the correct answer?" (emphasis added). I should have made myself clearer: the situation is obviously not clear cut, because Ferrari came up with a different answer to you. Since the situation is not unarguable, it is not appropriate for us to conduct original research. I do understand that your calculation is most likely correct, although I suspect you feel I don't, but I feel that for the specific medium of Wikipedia it represents a step too far in correcting facts via our own research. I'll make my final words on this: "verifiability, not truth". Best Regards. 4u1e (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- And that's deliberate on my part. Unless we are content that this is an issue we should settle from first principles, then it's pointless debating them. This is different to the simple errors that we would correct without question (despite what formula1.com says, Johnny Herbert did not drive a Lotus in at the 1994 Japanese Grand Prix!), in that it depends on interpretation: do you include the NART races? Why? If you want to get really picky (I don't), Ferrari's statement that they have entered 800 Formula 1 World Championship Grands Prix is unquestionably wrong as pointed out above: 16 of them were not Formula One races, and one of those wasn't a Grand Prix either. Same applies to your alternative total. More to the point, Ferrari arrived at their total somehow, so there is at least one other way of stacking up the numbers. But I don't want to get into a debate over which total is 'correct'. I come back to my previous point: if the total is obviously wrong, there should be a reliable source mentioning it as there was for the similar confusion over the Williams total recently. 4u1e (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- 4u1e, I'm still to hear any debate about the subject itself. All arguments that were brought up so far were revolving around OR and use of sources, rather than about the subject matter. cherkash (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's my suggestion:
- Let's keep the information about Ferrari's claim in the article about Turkey-10. This info in uncontroversial — I, or anybody else, may disagree with the Ferrari's count (or lack thereof, and possible reliance on unreliable sources instead), but there's no doubt this claim was made. So this is factual and can be kept.
- Let's note it in the Canada-10 article, that this was Ferrari's 800th participation in the F1 race, contrary to the Ferrari's own claim.
- Let's keep statistics in individual articles (Ferrari team, drivers, etc.) true to the standards we adopt here on WPF1 project. These are independent of the claims that Ferrari or any other team may be making. If you want to challenge any aspect of the stats calculations, let's open a different discussion, but it seems that current total of 811 race starts for Ferrari in F1 is unchallenged so far — and I would imagine it would remain so unless we fundamentally change a definition of what constitutes a race start for a team. cherkash (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with your first suggestion. I would suggest doing the second one only if you can find an external source which supports the statement. As for your third point, I agree that 811 is the number of WDC rounds which cars entered by Scuderia Ferrari have started (if you include NART entries), but it is my understanding that the "Races competed" field in team infoboxes includes non-starts (similar to the "Races" field in driver infoboxes) - see Toleman and Onyx Grand Prix as examples. DH85868993 (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've made the correction with respect to the third point at the Ferrari's page. And I still hope to have a more engaged discussion of the second point here in this forum (see my most recent comment above, in response to 4u1e). cherkash (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've said all I've got to say on this - but surely others have views. Anyone? 4u1e (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've made the correction with respect to the third point at the Ferrari's page. And I still hope to have a more engaged discussion of the second point here in this forum (see my most recent comment above, in response to 4u1e). cherkash (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Fastet Laps
I think we can make more fastet laps in driver results. the fastet lap stays how it is but we make a second fastet lap in Silver and third fastet lap in Bronz. I found info on the site http://www.chicanef1.com/recfast.pl?pos=2&who=d Here you can clik on the third and second fastet lap an than you can clik on a number behind the driver an then you see in wich grand prix they scored second or third fastet lap. and if yoe clik on the grand prix and at the bottom you can clik on fastet laps then you see the info is right explenaton of Eddie Cheever second fastet lap 1987 brazilan gp http://www.chicanef1.com/race.pl?year=1987&gp=Brazilian%20GP&r=1&type=fast Now we can add more information at the drivers results explanation jos verstappen he scored the 3rd fatet lap in the 1996 spanish gp Then it is going to look like this.
Complete Formula One results
(key)
User:Kevintjeerdsma1996 (talk)
- Personally I think it's too much information, and beyond the scope of the tables - second and third-fastest laps are not very important really - but let's see what others think. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not only is fastest lap not really relevant to most results tables (it does not score any actual points, at least for many decades now), second and third are completely useless and should not be included in the slightest. The359 (Talk) 19:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm with the other guys on this. Fastest lap itself is frequently noted in connection with the sport (witness Vettel's fascination with gathering them this year, or Raikkonen doing the same thing last year). Second and third fastest laps on the other hand are not considered important anywhere that I'm aware of. 4u1e (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm also not in favour, for the same reasons. DH85868993 (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the others, and another problem is that the bronze colour makes 1996 Spanish Grand Prix look like a red link.--Midgrid(talk) 22:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm also not in favour, for the same reasons. DH85868993 (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm with the other guys on this. Fastest lap itself is frequently noted in connection with the sport (witness Vettel's fascination with gathering them this year, or Raikkonen doing the same thing last year). Second and third fastest laps on the other hand are not considered important anywhere that I'm aware of. 4u1e (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not only is fastest lap not really relevant to most results tables (it does not score any actual points, at least for many decades now), second and third are completely useless and should not be included in the slightest. The359 (Talk) 19:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Second and third fastest laps fail notability surely? Almost never referred to except as a trivial quirk and make absolutely no contribution to the season as a whole. Absolutely no. --Falcadore (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Totally pointless, totally unnecessary and of no benefit to users. This is a classic example of tables being abused to try and convey too much information of a spurious nature. The fastest lap is only shown for the purposes of general interest it doesn't score any point or mean anything significant. Second and third fastest laps are rarely if ever shown on T.V broadcast and are of even less meaning than the actual fastest lap. This wholly fails to meet the notability criteria for inclusion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I;m also in whit you guys It doesn't make any sense. User:Kevintjeerdsma1996 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC).