Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Formula One (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Lap leader charts[edit]

During the GA review of 2015 Mexican Grand Prix, the reviewer Saskoiler suggested a caption to be added for the lap leader chart. I do not really consider this necessary and I also do not know if it is technically possible, so I wanted to get your thoughts on it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, why would we need a caption? The "Lap Leader" title I think makes it clear enough, we'd just be repeating that surely? CDRL102 (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Porsche cars results[edit]

The Porsche cars do not have a results table in Formula One. --Adriel 00 (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Adriel 00: Please see Porsche Grand Prix results. Eagleash (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I mean the articles of the cars. I think the rest of the cars that participated, or most, if they have one, these why not? --Adriel 00 (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
There's no real reason why they should not have one (other than the cars may not be considered particulary significant in the history of F1). You are welcome to add them if you so wish. Eagleash (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Article titles (revisited)[edit]

A few months ago, we made a change in article naming conventions. "19/20XX Formula One season" was moved to "19/20XX FIA Formula One World Championship". However, upon reflection I am not convinced that this was the best location to move the article to; "19/20XX FIA Formula 1 World Championship" would be a better location as it is used in most articles. For example, this one from Autosport:

"Daniel Ricciardo has received a three-place grid penalty for his home Formula 1 race"

Nor is it a one-off, as shown by this atticle from Autosport:

"Sebastian Vettel believes there is "a lot" more performance to come from Ferrari, having not felt comfortable in Friday practice for the Formula 1 season-opening Australian Grand Prix"

It's not just within articles that Autosport do this—they organise stories by category and one of their categories is "Formula 1".

Other sources Speedcafe do it, too:

"Lewis Hamilton led a Mercedes one-two in the opening practice session of the Formula 1 Australian Grand Prix."

Of the 56 references currently used in the 2018 article, 27 use "Formula 1" or "F1" as opposed to "Formula One" (I haven't counted articles from teams that use the 1 in their entrant name), these come from a wide range of publishers, including the FIA, Road & Track, Renault, Autosport, GP Update, TASS, Speedcafe, Eurosport, ESPN and Autoweek. As per WP:COMMONNAME, I think it is safe to conclude that "19/20XX FIA Formula 1 World Championship" is the best name to use (although having said that, I haven't had a chance to look at other articles). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I first mentioned this on the 2018 talk page to see if it was worth bringing up here. I'm going to tag @Joseph2302, @Corvus tristis and @Zwerg Nase since they commented on the subject there. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
We had this discussion last year after you brought it up, linked here for reference. I do not see how anything has changed since then, so I'll repeat my answer from then...
The choice between digit and word is a stylistic choice which varies between publications and sometimes changes over the years. There is no correct or incorrect choice, as both are in common usage, and both are used on an official basis in different contexts. There are various style guides which are split over recommending one or 1 (I could probably still access them for reference), which demonstrates the lack of any common usage; in the wild, when you expand from the motorsport media to the general media, the variety of usage is evident; the specialist media has largely harmonised on 1, but the broadsheet operations (The Times, The Guardian, FT, New York Times, Economist, etc) actually more commonly use one, as do many book publishers (based upon my library, yours of course may differ). It was also noted by GTHO that the FIA uses "FIA Formula One World Championship", and as both choices meet the five naming criteria, official usage may tip the scale for the status quo.
Because a common name is not apparent, and that criteria is arguably inapplicable on the basis that the choice of digit or word is a question of style not meaning, I'll refer to WP:TITLECHANGES: If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed.. QueenCake (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
@QueenCake — if there is no apparent common name, then I would argue that we should defer to the subject matter itself. The articles are about the championship, so how does the championship present itself?
Put it this way: if someone with no knowledge of the sport clicks "Random" on the main page, winds up reading the 2018 article and finds themselves interested enough to watch their first Grand Prix, what are they going to see? The sport has consistently presented itself as "Formula 1" for at least twenty years (that's what the debate over the negative space logo was all about). Everything from advertising to paraphinelia to companies associated with/endorsed by the championship (eg F1 Experiences) use the digit and while these are official names, they don't differ wildly from a common name. If it is a toss-up between the word or the digit, I would go with digit because both official and third-party sources use it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Also, Formula 1 is the top tier of the FIA Global Pathway, a push to consolidate the single-seater progression ladder. Other championships endorsed by the FIA—including Formula 2, Formula 3 and Formula 4—all use digits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
The championship presents itself as Formula One, as you can see from the FIA, who own this sport. The rights holder may use 1, but they are also called Formula One Management, so they are hardly consistent themselves, it makes absolutely no difference what readers see, because we assume they have the extremely basic capacity to know what a number is whether expressed as word or digit. I will repeat that there is no common usage, once you stop cherry-picking sources to suit your own preference. QueenCake (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not cherry-picking sources. In the opening post, I'm referring to the 56 sources used in the 2018 article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

If we are finally going to adhere to WP:COMMONNAME, we should also drop the FIA moniker from the titles and go to "19/20XX Formula 1 World Championship" per the previous discussion on the matter.Tvx1 00:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

How about we just deal with this one issue at a time? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, let's focus at the issue at hand first. I have stated on the 2018 talk page that I'd be in favour of changing to the digit, since "Formula 1" is the term that the licence holder uses. However, looking at the FIA website, they consistently use "Formula One", especially when laying out the regulations, the definite framework of how this series comes into being in the first place. Considering that, I am actually in favour of keeping it as it is now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@Zwerg Nase — that's the name the FIA use, but it's also arguably an WP:OFFICIALNAME. The FIA is invaluable as a source, but there is a danger of over-relying on it, it would be the same as if we only drew on Autosport for article content. WP:COMMONNAME suggests that we should rely on independent and third-party sources in deciding article titles and there is a wide range of sources that use the digit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's helpful in any way to put our articles through two moves in quick succession, so I think it's best that we tackle both issues in one go.Tvx1 13:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Who said anything about two moves? We settle on one issue and then we settle on the other. Then we move it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I really don't see why we couldn't discuss both in one go. The issue is not that complicated.Tvx1 13:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
If we go by WP:COMMONNAME (and why wouldn't we?), I think we should be reviewing the whole name and not just the "One"/"1" part of it. Googling just English-language pages and excluding Wikipedia, with "All" and "News" options gives:
Search string Count for "All" Count for "News"
"2018 FIA Formula One World Championship" 14100 408
"2018 Formula One World Championship" 33500 4530
"2018 FIA Formula 1 World Championship" 11000 546
"2018 Formula 1 World Championship" 16400 1890
So it looks like "2018 Formula One World Championship" best satisfies the common name policy statement: most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). -- DeFacto (talk). 18:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
There's a difference between Googling the terms and looking at the number of independent and reliable sources. Googling gives you everything, so unless you're willing to check every search result, you cannot use it to judge the number of sources, after all, Googling the terms is highly likely to include Joe Saward's blog in its results and Saward is not a reliable source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
It gives a feel for the relative magnitudes involved. Or are you saying all the unreliable sources use one particular wording and the reliable sources use another? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Not at all. Unreliable sources may use either wording or both. There's no way to tell unless ypu evaluate each source independently. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
As do reliable sources. I'm not sure where you're going here, after it has been clearly demonstrated there is not common wording. QueenCake (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
What I'm trying to point out is that we cannot simply Google the terms and use the number of results to guide our decision-making because of the potential for unreliable sources to be included in that number. For example, DeFacto searched Google News for "2018 FIA Formula One World Championship" and "2018 FIA Formula 1 World Championship", he got 408 results for the former and 546 for the latter. But what if 200 of the latter results came from Joe Saward, who is an unreliable source? Suddenly we've got 408 results for one and 346 for the other. We cannot take the numbers as absolute. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think DeFacto ever claimed that these numbers are absolute. Regardless the difference between the number of hits for "2018 Formula One World Championship" is more than large enough to be meaningful.Tvx1 13:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

So where are we with this? I think the common name is pretty clear-cut.Tvx1 00:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Given that the discussion tailed off so quickly, I don't think there's really any appetite for change. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually I think there is a reasonable support.Tvx1 01:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. Most of the conversation has so far revolved around how to measure the common name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
You're again the only one opposing what the guidelines encourage us to do. If there is no further opposition. I'll start moving the articles next week.Tvx1 20:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
No, you won't. When we first moved the articles from "season" to "championship", we established a consensus to use the current name. You will need a new consensus to change it, after all, you said it yourself: they are guudelines. They are not biblical commandments. Your concerns were taken into consideration when that consensus was formed, so please stop misrepresenting things. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The consensus is clear. You cannot unilaterally object to it. It's not up to you to decide what happens and what doesn't.Tvx1 12:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, the original consensus is clear: that the name"19/20XX FIA Formula One World Championship" is most appropriate. You haven't established a new consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Strangely, you're the only one who thinks so. Just because a consensus was achieved at some point it doesn't mean these titles are locked in for all eternity. Consensus can change. And two subsequent discussions were held showing a clear support for the moves I ultimately made. You're the only one refusing to accept a change and are for some reason unable to even accept the existence of opinions disagreeing with you, all the while not bringing one meaningful arguments as to why it is vital to include FIA in the titles, the only thing you have done right from the start is to desperately try to prevent it being discussed at all.Tvx1 22:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
"Strangely, you're the only one who thinks so."
Could it be that I am the only one who has had time to respond? The original discussion took almost three months to resolve. You raised the issue and when the discussion petered out, you issued an ultimatum of three days and only four editors have actually contributed to this discussion. You know perfectly well that major changes take time to introduce and that moving forty pages constitutes a major change. Furthermore, you also acknowledged that the policies you insist on enforcing are simply guidelines, at the very least, you should have allowed more time for people to participate in the discussion before taking it upon yourself to do as you please.
Also, the original discussion involved ten people. This one only involved four. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Apparently you can neither read nor count. The policies I refer to are quite blatantly policies. If you would bother to click on WP:COMMONNAME or WP:PRECISE you would see a note on that page clearly identifying it as a policy, the policy on article titles. And we cannot ignore policies for the sake of it. Secondly, this discussion contained five participants (You, QueenCake, DeFacto, Zwerg Nase, me), as did the related discussion from last October. Also your claim of this just taking three days, when it's clear this issue was thoroughly discussed over seven months (over the twice the length of time it took for the original discussion) is just wrong, over these two discussions only one person ever agreed with you with keeping the titles, DeFacto, but clearly has changed their mind.So the consensus is clear for every one to see here. You are the lone opposer and consensus ≠ not unanimity.Tvx1 12:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, originally I was more concerned about replacing "season" with "championship", and hadn't really noticed that that the "FIA" bit wasn't that widely used. But now, per WP:COMMONNAME, I can see it is more usual to omit it. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

"when it's clear this issue was thoroughly discussed over seven months"

I think the technical term for this is "bullshit". If it was thoroughly discussed over seven months, why was the original archived? You're attempting to portray this as an ongoing debate, but if that were true, the debate would be ongoing. It would not have stopped, been archived and then revived months later.

And yes, that's the only part of your comment that I'm going to address. It's such a blatant misrepresentation of the discussion that to address anything else would just be fuelling your behaviour. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

All I wanted to pointed out is that seven months passed since this was first raised. That first discussion was only archived in early January. So it was live for three months, this discussion has been running for nearly a month as well. That defeats all your accusations that not enough time was given for comments to be made. An over those two discussion you are the only one still making a fuss over this. I really don't understand why you take such offense to this change, the titles as they stand perfectly tell our readers what the articles deal with. I can't understand your objection to them because you keep complaining about technicalities in the process the move came about rather than bringing arguments regarding the titles themselves.Tvx1 01:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
"All I wanted to pointed out is that seven months passed since this was first raised."
But what you actually said was that the issue was discussed "over seven months", which suggests that the discussion had been ongoing during that time. I think that what you had meant to say was that it was discussed "over seven months ago", which completely changes the meaning of your statement. You cannot fault me for taking what you say at face value. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
No I didn't mean to say "over seven months ago". That's simply incorrect. A first discussion ran from October until early January, a second one has been running since a month. That's not "over seven months" ago. More than enough opportunity was given for arguments as to why using FIA is necessary to be presented, they didn't come and there is only one opposer going by "I won't accept the change". Consensus is thus crystal clear and I acted.Tvx1 15:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
"More than enough opportunity was given for arguments as to why using FIA is necessary to be presented. They didn't come"
No argument that we came up with was ever going to be good enough because you had already made up your mind as to what you wanted.
WP:F1 prioritises sources all the time. For instance, we consider the FIA entry list to be the highest authority on entries. Williams have announced that Robert Kubica will appear during FP1 sessions during the year, but he doesn't appear in the team and driver table because he hasn't appeared on any entry lists yet. We should be prioritising the actual race as our source—ww know Ricciardo won in China not because Autosport ran a story about it but because we can watch the races ourselves. And those races are frequently re-broadcast, so they are peefectly valid as a source (and there are citation templates that make this possible). Given that the sport uses a world feed where all viewers, the race itself should be the primary source because it has a much higher degree of verifiability. And those races are always presented as "FIA Formula 1 World Championship". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I find it a bit strange that some editors (myself included) who participated in the original discussion extensively, were never notified about this new discussion taking place. My personal take is to keep the titles as agreed back in 2017: i.e., "XXXX FIA Formula One World Championship" (with a strong preference on including "FIA" in the title, and a weak preference of "One" over "1"). cherkash (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cherkash: sure we're all entitled to our opinions, but Wiki needs a sound policy-based reason to backup opinion if it is to carry weight in deciding a consensus. I think you need to explain why you think WP:COMMONNAME should be ignored for these articles, and what policy supports your preferred name. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Cherkash, I don‘t understad this contribution of yours at all. Throughout the previous discussion on removing the FIA part you strongly advocated indeed removing it and repeatedly asked when it would finally be done. Now that it has been done you come and state that it should reinstated without any explanation, that just doesn’t make sense.Tvx1 13:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Let me clarify (and qualify) my statement above. I didn't have much time to go into details when I made my comment above. I can elaborate some more now. So please consider this comment my latest stance on the subject.
I think a little more careful attention to details should have been paid by the editors who've recently moved/renamed the articles. There were a few valid objections raised by e.g. Prisonermonkeys in the original discussion, that would require some tweaking of the renaming even if we agreed to actually go ahead and rename the post-1980 F1 seasonal articles.
Couple points/examples I want to bring your attention to:
  • In at least one of the intervening years (1981–present), there was more than one concurrent F1 championship run in the same year (1982 British Formula One Championship), so having 1982 FIA championship's article named simply "1982 Formula One Championship" instead of a more proper "1982 FIA Formula One Championship" would be misleading at the very least, and likely against the relevant Wikipedia policies. (There are other examples in earlier years: pre-1981 British Formula One Championship and South African Formula One Championship in 1960s & '70s – but since the renaming here concerns 1981 and onward seasons, these are brought here just as an example of things to be careful about, esp. if we further extend discussion at any point to the pre-1981 seasons.)
And though I've indeed been strongly in favor of dropping the "FIA" part of the article names, we should have discussed and paid attention to a few more nuanced things before doing this round of renaming. Nothing hard to fix (indeed, it may only be 1982 article that requires fixing – but nevertheless a cautionary note about making sweeping changes to a number of years without paying attention).
Hence, my current stance – corrected and adjusted from above – is that I'm ok with the renaming of the majority of post-1980 season articles, with an exception for 1982, and with a strong preference for making such choice more uniform across multiple similar series/championships (at least the ones involving FIA).
- cherkash (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Prisonermonkeys did indeed mention the 1982 article in the original discussion. However I already addressed that back then. Contrary to your claim the 1982 article wasn't changed to "1982 Formula One Championship" but to "1982 Formula One World Championship". That's what provides the disambiguation. One is called "1982 Formula One World Championship" the other "1982 British Formula One Championship". I can't see how that leaves any confusion. There was only one of each type of championship that year. I don't really think using "FIA" there would help. We don't name the governing body for the British championship either, the presence of World is also what separates Formula One from the lower Formulae. There are no World Championships in Formula Two, Formula Three and indeed Formula Four.Tvx1 21:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
See, this is what we are supposed to do: we discuss the issue, come to decision and make changes from there. You don't make the changes and then adopt a siege mentality. You may not have understood cherkash's point, but that does not mean you get to deny him a voice, he was a participant in the original discussion—indeed, one of the earliest supporters; without him the discussion probably would not have gained traction—which maked him a stakeholder in this discussion. You don't get to arbitrarily decide who is notified of a discussion and who is not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you please stop with these delirious and baseless accusations of bad faith. I never made any discussion at all regarding nothing other users. I never denied anyone anything. I don't know what that claim is based on. I even asked Cherkash for more clarification. And over seven months have passed since this was first raised so you simply cannot accuse of me of not giving opportunity for discussion. And where do you even get the guts to accuse me of not engaging in discussion when right from the start you tried to use every sort of excuse to try and block this issue from being discussed. If there's one person on a siege it's you, it looks more and more like you cannot stand not having gotten your way on the one/1 thing and are now looking for a scapegoat to vent your frustration on. If you are really that convinced that my actions are so unacceptable and damaging to the project then please report me to the administrators and we'll see what they think of it.Tvx1 00:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
"I never denied anyone anything. I don't know what that claim is based on."
You don't think that people who were part of the original discussion might have some input when you're revisiting it? If nothing else, it's common courtesy to inform them of an ongoing discussion.
"I even asked Cherkash for more clarification."
Only once he joined the conversation. And he only joined after you moved the articles.
What you don't seem to grasp is that this isn't about what you do—it's about the way you do it. On the one hand, you preach the importance of certain policies and guidelines, but the way you make the changes looks very underhanded. When you don't inform the editors involved in the original discussion (especially those who supported the original title), it looks like you're going behind their backs or trying to cut them out of the process. I'm sure you'll reply, protesting your innocence and claiming these are bad faith accusations, but before you do, answer me this: why didn't you make any attempt to inform the editors involved in the original discussion that you wanted to make a change? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Halo article[edit]

I'm thinking of creating an article on the halo (similar to Drag Reduction System) since it's not just for Formula 1 anymore—Formula 2, Formula 3 and Formula E are all using it, Indycar is developing their own version, and the FIA wants all single-seater series to adopt it by 2020. It's a little awkward to link those series to the 2018 Formula 1 article for an explanation. I'm just having a little trouble settling on a name for the article since most sources simply refer to it as the halo. I think "Halo cockpit protection device" is probably the best fit, but I'm wondering if there are other possible suggestions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Use the nale that the FIA uses in the regulations.Tvx1 07:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Use the common name, i.e. "halo", and disambiguate it, e.g. "Halo (motor racing)". But whatever name is chosen, use the current article "Halo (safety device)" and, if necessary, rename it later. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
In the Spanish version already exists: Halo (automovilismo) (in English it would be Halo (motorsport)). --Adriel 00 (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Circuit maps[edit]

For some time I have been bothered by the circuit maps that we use in articles. Individually, there is nothing wrong with them; they're all very well-made. However, the issue is that they have a variety of styles and I feel that they should be the same. Here is a sample of what I am talking about:

Circut Paul Ricard 2018 layout map.png
Albert Lake Park Street Circuit in Melbourne, Australia.svg
Circuit Yas-Island.svg
Spa-Francorchamps of Belgium.svg

Normally I would just go ahead and make the changes myself, but unfortunately I don't have the skills to be able to do this (I can barely draw a convincing stick figure) and so I'm hoping to garner some support from the WikiProject. Personally, my preference is for what I'm calling the "Silverstone style":

Circuit Silverstone 2011.svg

I like this because it's minimalisy, it only shows the circuit (unlike the Abu Dhabi map, which shows additional roads), the corners are numbered and the names applied (where appropriate), and there is a scale, compass direction and some arrows showing direction of travel. The only change I would make is to re-orient the image slightly to use the horizontal space more effectively.

Would anyone be interested in working on this? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I have found in the past that there is a very limited number of people who actually make these maps. I once searched for an updated map of the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve and wrote to every person who had done F1 maps, but they had all retired from doing stuff on Wikipedia by that point... Apart from that, I'd be all for consistency in maps. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@Zwerg Nase — I am told that it is quite easy to make the images; apparently all you need is a basic graphics program and Google Maps. But like I said, I'm no artist. You might as well ask me to paint the Sistene Chapel. I'm also told that there are some WikiProjects that produce images for other WikiProjects, so if we get support for change but lack the ability to do it ourselves, approaching them might be an option. We would just need to know exactly what we are looking for and maybe provide GPS co-ordinates for each circuit so that editors unfamiliar with the sport can find them.
I also noticed that @Pyrope uploaded the image for Buddh International Circuit, which I think I like even more than the Silverstone image. I'm hoping he might know of some editors who could do similar work. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I can tell you from experience that it's not that easy as at all. I had a go myself at creating a map of the original layout of Laguna Seca Raceway and it was a real pain to do it.Tvx1 22:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm fully in support of making circuit maps more uniform. There are indeed some tweaks that may not be that hard to do (I've done some of these in the past): e.g. changing fill styles of the road surfaces, tweaking/adding/removing some elements like corner numbers/names; while making maps from scratch may be more much laborious. I believe there are still a few people who make maps who are active, who have made maps from scratch – but I think it would make sense to come up with a set of specs (or zero in on one of the existing examples as a spec for the rest of the maps), and make a wide call to the community to help with such a project. What do you think? cherkash (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

New parameters for infoboxes[edit]

Outside Formula 1 articles, I edit WRC articles, and I have found a pair of parameters in Template:Infobox rally that I think would be of benefit in Template:Infobox Grand Prix race report. This is what I am talking about:

2018 Rally Sweden
Round 2 of 13 in the 2018 World Rally Championship
← Previous event Next event →

I think it would be beneficial for the reader to be able to switch from one race to the next at the top of the article rather than at the bottom as is currently the case. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections, I have added the new parameters. DH85868993 (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe these parameters have been removed in a misguided editing spree sometime in mid-2017 (see e.g. here as one example of the series of edits). Shortly after, an objection was raised and the editor involved agreed to stop this activity – but the majority of the articles was never reverted. Hence my question to you DH85868993: how far back did you go now to add these parameters back? Because I believe this calamity may have affected a lot of races as early as 1950. cherkash (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi cherkash. Different parameters. What I have just done is to add the "Previous round" and "Next round" parameters to the template. I haven't made any (recent) changes to the "Round X of Y in the <championship>" part (= the "Round_No" and "Season_No" parameters), either in the template or the race report articles. I think PM probably included that line in the infobox displayed at the right to show the location of the "Previous round" and "Next round" labels within the infobox. DH85868993 (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Mark Webber[edit]

Hi. Would anyone from this project be interested in looking at Mark Webber, it is a Good Article which has some orange level tags on it. AIRcorn (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The Renault in Formula One article[edit]

Why the hell has the Renault article been butchered for, what the heck was wrong with it in the first place that it needed changing? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you characterised the addition, rather than the subsequent deletion, of four useful infoboxes as butchery. There is a discussion taking place on the article's talkpage about the article contents and what is currently wrong with it. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
How repetitive infoboxes with made-up stats are "useful"? As I already said in the article's talk page, the improvements that the Renault in Formula One actually need are a more professional-style writing and more sources, not more infoboxes. In fact, most "Something in Formula One" infoboxes are covering constructors, with at least two different "eras" for most of them, and no-one seems to have a problem with that. "Team Enstone exceptionalism" hasn't grips on reality. As you said in your edit summaries in the article, there're no published stats for the individual "teams" covered in the article, so we need to actually engage in WP:OR to came with some form of them. If the change is really a neccessity, it should be implemented in all similar artices (Honda in Formula One, Mercedes-Benz in Formula One, Alfa Romeo in Formula one and so on). To be clear, I think it isn't. --Urbanoc (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
This is confusing - can we keep all the discussion about mods to that specific article on its talkpage please? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@Speedy Question Mark
"Why the hell has the Renault article been butchered for, what the heck was wrong with it in the first place that it needed changing?"
It was little more than fancruft. Whoever has been working on it seems to have been under the assumption that everything even remotely connected to the team needed to be included, the end result is a bloated, poorly-written mess. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: I'm not sure which content you are referring to - can you give us a diff please, because I had assumed that Speedy Question Mark was complaining about my addition of a team infobox for each team covered by the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes for each team in multi-team articles[edit]

I have come across an annoying integrity problem in the Renault in Formula One article which I would like to find an elegant solution to. I found the article to be unusable when trying to follow the "next name"/"previous name" chains starting from the infobox in Benetton Formula, the Benetton article took me to the top of the Renault article, but the "previous name" link from there took me, not back to the Benetton article, but to the Lotus F1 article! So I re-pointed the Benetton link to go to the appropriate team section in the Renault article, but then there is no infobox there - so no "next name"/"previous name" buttons to click. I then put new team infoboxes in each team section, which worked beautifully. However, my efforts were very quickly and ruthlessly reverted as 'All "xxx in Formula One" articles as one infobox for the constructor, not the teams" by one editor and characterised as butchery by another.

So I have come here to see if we can dream-up a solution that will: a) make these types of article usable for readers who are interested in following the history of teams as they pass from one owner to another, b) continue to group different teams by constructor name (as we have for Renault and Mercedes now).

What I think we need is an infobox at the start of each separate team section in these type of articles so that we can, at least, have somewhere to put the "next name"/"previous name" buttons to allow the chains to be logical and unbroken. If we do add an infobox, we could add other interesting info to it too, and even save reinventing the wheel and maintain article consistency by using the existing Template:Infobox former F1 team or Template:Infobox F1 team (as appropriate). -- DeFacto (talk). 22:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

As I'm the editor that "very quickly and ruthlessly reverted", I'll kick this up. I'd say I had my arguments to do it, even if DeFacto disagrees with them, for not repeating myself immediataly, see this long discussion between us to know the reasons I'm opposed to his changes. --Urbanoc (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@Urbanoc: those arguments though (as I said there) are not against solving the usability/integrity problem I described above, they are more about the legitimacy of certain stats which might (or might not) be added as bonus ancillary data at the same time. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
They're against both, actually (see my first answer to you in the discussion). I think you already resolved the alleged problem by adding a section link (see my second answer), but I'm more strongly opposed to the separated stats, that's true. In any case, my arguments are there, if someone wants to know them. --Urbanoc (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@Urbanoc: no, the section link does not solve the problem, it just corrects the "next name" step from the Benetton Formula article. There is still no way to get to the next team or even correctly back to the Benetton article - that is the main usability problem that I am trying to get a solution to, the chain we need to be able to follow (both ways) is Benetton Formula <-> Renault F1 Team <-> Lotus Renault GP <-> Renault Sport Formula One Team. We still only have one way along the first link of the three currently available. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, it does. The Benetton article is linked through the "Renault in Formula One" article. That's the point of internal links, they're there to link related topics. We just don't need infoboxes everywhere to replace/duplicate them. --Urbanoc (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────How 'bout we just remove the confusing next name/previous name parameters from the inboxes. They seem to be the source of all the confusion. And they are in contradiction of our convention to have these articles deal with constructors, not entrant. Renault Sport F1 team is not the next name of the constructor Lotus and Lotus F1 team is not the previous name of the constructor Renault, they are separate, independent entities and if our readers reading these article want to find out more about the extended history they already can using the wikilinks in the prose.Tvx1 00:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That was my understanding from past discussions, that, for most articles on F1 racing entities, the primary topic was the constructor, not the team(s). And, as a general rule (although there're exceptions on consensus), the infobox in those articles is supposed to primarly cover constructors, not teams, especially on stats. If I'm correct, that was the reason we separated "Lotus Renault GP" from "Lotus F1" and combined the old and new Mercedes, all the Hondas, the Alfa Romeos, and so on.
I agree with you, the "previous name"/"Next name" thing is quite misleading and without purpose. When one says "previous" name, what's talking about? The constructor? The team? Both? None of those? We have an article saying a constructor established in 1954 was preceded by an entity supposedly established in 2009, things like that. I think that attempt of condensing information isn't working, it isn't neither replacing the article text nor saying too much. So, I personally agree. Delete those parameters. --Urbanoc (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Tvx1: I agree that if these articles are to be solely, even mainly, about constructors - and not teams - that the "previous name"/"next name" parameters would become redundant. However, as much of the current content of these article is about the team rather than the constructor then the team navigation params would seem to be a necessity.
Looking specifically at the Renault in Formula One article, we see that the current team name is in bold on the first line, that the lead concentrates mainly on the teams involved in Renault's history and their previous incarnations, and that most of the rest of the article is based on team-centric sections. Then there is the top infobox, which is the "Infobox F1 team" - many/most of the paramaters of which relate mainly to team attributes: long_name, logo, base, principal, director, website, (previous_name, next_name), ...drivers, ...test drivers, drivers_champ. So we see that there are a lot of other parameters that will need removing too, if only for the sake of consistency and integrity, if we are to rectify the "contradiction of our convention to have these articles deal with constructors, not entrant" that you mentioned.
I support converting these articles to be constructor-centric with the proviso that all non-constructor specific parameters (not just the previous/next params) are removed from the infobox and that the team-specific prose and table columns be reduced to the bare minimum. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Your argument is interesting, but it has some reductionist falacies. Firstly, it implies primary topic means removing all info on valid secondary topics, which is teams, and that's not the case, the point of primary topic is more about deciding which thing will have priority when deciding the scope of the article. That's why Renault in Formula One covers the original Renault team and all subsequent Renaults until 2011 (the sub-headings using team names are a logical thing to do), but we separate Lotus Renault GP from Lotus F1 Team, as they became a new constructor. Secondly, all redirects to the article should be bolded, especially those mentioned on the lede, that doesn't mean "Renault Sport Formula One Team" is more important for the article that all Renault's past entries or the constructor itself. Thirdly, these days "team" and "constructor" are de facto the same thing from an operative perspective, so you need to mention team personnel and suppliers, as those are the personnel and suppliers for the constructor. --Urbanoc (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Urbanoc: your points all support keeping the team information in these articles, unlike the arguments from Tvx1 above to which I was replying. Whether we keep all the team information in these articles or split them into one or more additional articles for the teams, I still believe we need to provide a simple previous/next method to walk up and down the team chains wherever they are described - as we do between the car models, the seasons, the Grands Prix, etc. I have not yet seen a reason not to provide that chain for the readers benefit, and it would seem pointless not to (especially as we try to do it currently).
So are we now arguing whether to actually keep all the team and constructor data together in the same articles, or are we still trying to find a way of providing a team chaining mechanism within multi-team articles to allow the current team chaining system to be able to pass both ways through these types of article too. I would personally say let's stick with the latter and see what we can dream up between us. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think infoboxes are the best way to achieve this. Navboxes were invented for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talkcontribs) 2018-03-31T23:59:46 (UTC)
That maybe so, but we do use them all over the F1 articles for this purpose, so it's not that unusual if there's one sitting there in the right place. However, if the consensus turns out to be that we cannot tolerate the use of the F1 team infoboxes (that are used for most of the other F1 teams) just these particular F1 teams, then I guess we'll need to design create and add inavboxes to them instead, and to all the other individual team articles for consistency and usabilty. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
How my arguments are against Tvx1's? We both agree the navegational parameters in the infobox should go. I don't think Tvx1 are saying we must remove all info on teams, just that our focus is constructors. I invite you to read again what I said, more carefully this time; in fact, I invite any editor to read what I said and comment if I was supporting your position in any way. It was quite the opposite. To repeat myself, I'm against the reductionist fallacy of your argument, which is that if we mention info on the teams, we need to give them some form of special treatment, either through infoboxes or separated articles. My points ("Firstly", "Secondly", "Thirdly") were a 3-part debunking of that idea. To resume them:
a) To include some information on teams doesn't imply either we need to give them special treatment or that our primary focus isn't constructors. In brief, we can just remove the pointless/confusing things (as the navegational parameters) and keep the important.
b) To bold text doesn't imply something is a primary topic of an article. It can just mean it's a redirect.
c) From an operational perspective (but not from an statistical or historical one), both constructors and teams are the same thing nowdays, so obviously we need to include some information that both share (drivers, suppliers, personnel). That doesn't imply the focus is teams. --Urbanoc (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
From your latest comments it's clear that you have misunderstood my ideas and comments here, and that I've apparently misunderstood yours too. Rather than squabble about how much constructor info should be present in the team infobox and how much team info should be removed from it, let's try and be constructive about how we can fix the original problem - the team chain navigation issue, for our readers. Tvx1 has reminded us that navboxes are available for this purpose. What's your view on replacing the team navigation elements in the team infoboxes with a new navbox, a navbox that can then also be used (rather than an infobox) for the teams that are covered only in sub-sections of others teams' articles? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's fair enough. But, in that case, I've to return to what I've said earlier, which is I don't share your view that there is a problem and we must include little navigational boxes everywhere or we must highlight in some form sections of an article. If some of the navigational tools we have now are confusing, my opinion is that it's better to remove them, not compensating adding more confusion. I don't know if Tvx1's comment was either supporting navboxes for the teams or saying that we must use them instead of infobox templates if a consensus for that arises. Maybe he can clarify that, but I say it's better adding nothing. Going even far, I personally think putting too much emphasis on teams (or more exactly "entrants", as teams is a vague term) is WP:UNDUE, as that's not reflected on our sources, where constructors get more coverage even if they are also conflated with the mix of people and infrastructure running them. That's a problem, really, and one of the reasons I think this project set to focus on constructor instead of team, as the word team, in an F1 context, is an intentionally vague term that can mean three different things when used, especially on the press: a) The constructor, b) The entrant, c) The combination of the physical location and the personnel working for them. Nevertheless, constructor is the more common synonym. All three "Renaults" are mostly seen as one, following the constructor. When those entrants are discussed, the press reports covering them tend to focus more on the past of the constructor than on the entrants or the structures running them, for example, most press reporting on the Mercedes 2014 constructor championship say that it was the first for Mercedes, while some (less) also point out in a second sentence that it was the second for the "Brackley-based team" (the latter chiefly by the British press, unsurprisingly). Even more rare were the ones mentioning the actual entrant name, "Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team", the same logic also goes for Renault. In any case, generic, made-up terms aimed at fandom like "Team Enstone" or "Team Brackley" are far more common in opinion pieces that in actual news reports, but prove that the word team in Formula One is quite malleable and can be used for a lot of things.

Of course, there're certain special cases where the entrant, called in those articles team (in fact, when team is used within Wikipedia, it often refers to the present-day "entrant" concept), is equally relevant, but that's generally on situations where it either existed before the constructor bearing its name or the "constructor" concept didn't ever exist (Ferrari, Williams), and those cases are treated differently already.

If neccesary, internal links can be pointed to specific sections, but anyone reading the lead section of the Renault constructor article can see if the same base location was used for other constructors before/after, and in fact, links to them right there, the lead section of the Mercedes contructor article not even mentions Brawn GP and no-one complains there's a lack of information. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST isn't an argument in itself, but the point is that the Mercedes article gives even less coverage to the "other constructor/entrant" past than the Renault one. There're links through the article to Benetton and Lotus F1, even to Toleman which was technically based in another location. We just don't need to make it seem like the past constructors/entrants (or the different entrants associated with the same constructor) are more/equally important in the Renault in Formula One article than the Renault constructor. And, at this point, no-one more seems to think there's a problem with the Renault article as it is, the problems most people see on the Renault in Formula One article are more related to the content quality than to navigational issues, and those must be tackled diffently. --Urbanoc (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a problem; the team name chain that starts with "Toleman" and progresses to "Benetton Formula" and then to "Renault F1 Team" is broken at that point (within the Renault in Formula One article) and the three names used under Renault ("Renault F1 Team", "Lotus Renault GP" and "Renault Sport F1 Team") are not linked up, which also means that "Lotus F1" (which occurred between "Lotus Renault GP" and "Renault Sport F1 Team" is cut out of the chain). You cannot logically deny that - it is a fact - the chain stops - there is nothing there to click to either go back to the previous link or forward to the next one. There is not a problem with the general logic of the team links, and they are not confusing as you seem to be trying to imply; in fact, as they are all simple one-to-one sequences, they could hardly be less complex.
The only obstacle to fixing the discontinuity seems to be an unwillingness to accept that the three different names used by the team for its three different eras using the "Renault" constructor name (the last two being separated by a period using "Lotus" as the constructor name) are of equal notability to the names the team used whilst using all the other constructor names. I cannot understand the logic or reason for that stance: all the team names are recognised and documented in reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I said remove the previous/next name parameters from the inboxes and I stand by it. I did mention navboxes but the longer I think about it the less I think that is an efficient solution, as it stands the necessary links are actually already present in the prose and we can further refine these to make them lead to the relevant sections of the involved articles.Tvx1 15:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Tvx1: why make the team chain navigation more difficult and more obscure when it is, apart currently from within the Renault in Formula One article, so straightforward at the moment? It doesn't add up. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Who says it's more difficult and more obscure? I think it's more instinctive. The alternative you propose is as you admitted confusing and unworkable because it requires creating even more infoboxes containing false information. Moreover, Renault is not the only one affect. Honda in Formula One and Mercedes-Benz in Formula One are affected as well. The former actually shows the correct example of how the infobox for such an article should look like (save for the previous/next name parameters which don't make sense there at all); in the Renault and Mercedes cases the infobox focuses to much on the latest incarnations.Tvx1 21:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Well; buried in a different place in the prose of each team is clearly more awkward and time consuming to find and use than in the same, predictable, place on a team infobox or navbox. And I said the sequential one-to-one chain is very simple, not not confusing or unworkable to add and use. So with just three articles potentially needing fixing, why throw out the baby with the bathwater and reduce the usability of all the other dozens of team articles using the previous/next facility just because of a few minutes adjustment in three articles? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Curious how that argument is apparently only valid in your favor. For some reason you do not have a problem to burry the identity of the tyre supplier deeply in the prose instead of keeping it easily visible in a table.Tvx1 22:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Then how do you explain the way the 2018 article has an entire sub-section dedicated to the tyres? Most championship articles have paragraphs dedicated to the tyres, given that Pirelli revise the compunds yearly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
@Tvx1: if you look again, a bit more dispassionately perhaps, you will see that the argument has a more subtle nuance than that. Navigation controls are easy to use if they are immediately to hand and consistent, and so it's not appropriate the for them only be available buried somewhere in the prose, and need to be searched out to use, that is the point I'm making here in support of fixing the team chain issue here. OTOH, redundant columns in tables are completely pointless - that type of information that applies equally to all teams and all cars and all drivers is better presented in the prose, and not repeated for each team as if it could vary in any way. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Well the 2015 and 2017 articles don't have a dedicated section on tyres. So that argument doesn't hold up, as for the team chain, the problem is the chains you want to include are somewhat fictitious. They have no claim on each other's achievements and in same cases the information is outright wrong; in the case of Honda in Formula One. BAR is not the previous name of the Honda works team and Brawn GP isn't the following name, this parameters just don't make sense at all there. The body of the article does each a much better job of providing the history, how the latest incarnation came to be and what happened after its demise.Tvx1 21:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
@Tvx1: The team name chains are not "ficticious", they are based purely on verifiable facts. Each of the teams in question here are operated by stand-alone companies which have existed under the same company registration details through various ownership changes and name changes over the years, they keep the same company number for their lifetime, but with their company names changed at the whim of their current owners. Take the current Mercedes team for example, it is registered with Companies House as company number 00787446[1] and as having been incorporated as Tyrrell Racing Organisation in 1964. The registration details list its name changes, including to British American Racing Grand Prix in 1998, to BAR Honda GP in 2009, to Honda GP in 2006, to Brawn GP 2009 and to its current name in 2010. So we can certainly verify the various names in the team name chain. You say Brawn isn't the following name of the Honda team, well read this about Ross Brawn's takeover of the Honda team, and you'll see that there is no doubt that it is the same team under a new name - same personnel, same facilities, same cars under development and all: [2]. I cannot see any good reason why these team name chains aren't worth exposing, and in the most efficient way possible, for our readers, they will help readers explore the pedigrees and heritage of the teams, and allow them to acquire more knowledge from Wikipedia. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not the same team. New owner, new competitor, new independent records, as for the company registration. That's just the registration of the base of operations. All that companies house link proves is who the previous owners of those facilities were, that doesn't mean there is a continuation between the owners. Take Haas for instance, they have two company registrations. One in the US and one in the UK. Does that mean there are two Haas teams competing in Formula 1? No, not in the least. A base of operations is just that. It's list of previous inhibitors has no meaning as to who results in the sport are credited to.Tvx1 21:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Tvx1: did you read the Telegraph article about Ross Brawn? The teams operate as self-contained units - that can be bought and sold as units. Companies House isn't a register of facilities, it is a register of companies, and the business of the companies is monitored and recorded, and these operate as racing teams. Brawn GP inherited the Honda team and continued where they left off, that is very clear from their car and their results, the Haas team may have companies registered in two different countries, but only one of those will be registered with the FIA, and that will be the team's main company, the other will be a subsidiary of it, or a subsidiary of its holding company. Red Bull has more than one company involved in F1, two are teams and the other a shared factory I believe, the Red Bull UK-based team started life as Stewart Grand Prix in 1995, becoming Jaguar Racing in 2000 and subsequently Red Bull Racing in 2004. I don't think anyone has suggested that the FIA/F1 results recording system doesn't differentiate between the respective owner-designated "constructor" names, but the teams themselves certainly keep tallies of their past achievements, regardless of what they were called at the time, and it is not difficult to find examples where the press has said things like 'this is the team that has won x drivers' and y constructors' world championships under z different constructor names. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Sure a read it, but I don't know what you are trying to prove with it. 300 of the 750 people working in Brackley, or nearly half of them were laid off. So Brawn hired some of the key people who use to work Honda? Does that make it the same team? No. Brawn continued where Honda left off as is "very clear from their car and their results"? No, not in the least. The cars entered by Honda did never even come close to what the Brawn GP cars achieved. And don't come claiming the cars resembled each other, the 2008 Honda didn't not look like the 2009 Brawn in any way. The minute Honda sold their F1 operation the Japanese working ethic was removed and the two teams are completely independent competitors. It's been carefully explained to you before that the registry of base of operations with the companies house is nothing but a registration of the financial institution operating said base. Bills need to be paid, salaries need to be paid, profits or losses are made and all of that has to be registered somewhere, it says nothing about the racing teams and the history of their identity, nor about who has the right to claim the sportive achievements. The registration of the competitors is completely independent from that.Tvx1 22:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Infoboxes for each team in multi-team articles (convenience break 1)[edit]

@Tvx1: just from that one source (with my emphasis in places):

  • "Ross Brawn's Formula One team complete Honda takeover"
  • "Honda will race as Brawn GP in new F1 season"
  • "And British driver Jenson Button, who took a $7.5million (£5.4 million) pay cut to stay with the team"
  • "Brawn did confirm, however, that the current management team, including chief executive Nick Fry, would remain in place."
  • '"Quite simply, I have purchased the team from Honda," Brawn said'

That unequivocally supports the case that the Brawn team is the same team, in all but name, as the Honda team. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to say more about the car... From the car article (Brawn BGP 001) and various RSes we get:

  • Ross Brawn quoted in March 2009 as saying they have been working on the car for 15 months (i.e. well back into the team's Honda era).[3]
  • A description in Racecar Engineering as to how the BGP001 was largely based on the RA109 being developed by Honda before Brawn took over.[4]
  • "The BGP001 had a very long gestation period, with work beginning on it as early as 2007. Aerodynamicist Ben Wood began working on the car while he was at Honda's Super Aguri satellite team, and Honda simultaneously had a team working on their 2009 concept. Eventually they were combined. Honda had such an appalling season in 2008 that development instead went into the 2009 car, which became a Brawn when Honda pulled the plug on F1 last December." [5]

It is beyond doubt that the Brawn team was a continuation of the the Honda team under a new name. I hope you'll now agree. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

No I don't. They are different constructors and therefore different competitors. It's no up to The Telegraph to decide about continuation, they don't have the relevant authority, that lies with the FIA. As explained right from the start of this discussion our article deal with constructors, not teams. We don't have articles on "Team Brackley", "Team Milton Keynes", "Team Enstone", "Team Maranello" (well actually we do in a way for that last one because only one constructor ever operated from there) and so on. All the information in the Honda article relates to Honda works entries. All the numbers relate to results achieved by cars entered as Hondas. That's why the parameters are misleading for our readers in relation to the rest of the information in the article, the previous name for a Honda works entry before the 2006-2008 one was "Honda R&D" not "BAR".Tvx1 00:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Tvx1: the Telegraph (or any of the other innumerable reliable sources saying basically the same thing) haven't decided anything, all they have done is report and comment upon the reality. We cannot pretend that the Brawn team was a new team, when all the evidence I've presented shows that it is exactly the same team as the Honda team - under new ownership and with a new name. Sure, under Honda control the team chose to brand itself as "Honda" and under Brawn control it chose to brand itself as "Brawn", and that affected how the FIA regarded it under their rules, but that doesn't affect the reality, as reflected in the reliable sources, that there is only one underlying team, the one that Honda sold intact, lock stock and barrel, to Brawn, and which then changed its namr to "Brawn".
That the "team" articles are currently constructor-centric, in that they document the competitive history of the constructor name, does not mean that we cannot be honest about the fact (as documented in the reliable sources) if different physical teams have been bought and renamed to compete as that constructor name over time. And we cannot deny that some physical teams have been bought & renamed and sold & renamed more than once, and have thus competed as more than one constructor name in their history. The articles can adequately cover all of this, as indeed in an encyclopaedia such as this, they should. So let's accept that we can elaborate a bit on the intermediate physical teams and correct the navigation issues between some of them. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
And when did I claim we aren't honest about the history. In fact all the contested articles already adequately cover all of the background and afterwards in the articles' bodies. However, including these parameters which otherwise only deals with the results of the constructors in the sport as credited by the FIA is utterly confusing to our readers. Why is that so difficult to understand? And while bases and assets can be bought and sold. Entries cannot. It's for that exact reason that Phoenix Finance was not allowed to compete in 2002 after having acquired Prost's assets, they did not complete the required registration for a new team and did pay the required entry fee. Brawn GP was a new team for all sportive intents and purposes.Tvx1 13:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Tvx1: I'm not sure what parameters you are talking about - we are discussing how we can provide navigation aids to correctly join up the missing links in the team name chains, in the absence of the full team template for each team incarnation. That seems a very straightforward requirement, and one which will add clarity. We aren't talking about entries either, we are talking about teams, the teams that get bought, sold and renamed and which take on the guise of different constructors on the whim of their current owners, the fact that a team was unable to compete one season because its paperwork wasn't in order is irrelevant to this point. The Brawn team was the same team (as supported by multiple reliable sources), operating as a new constructor - and even the FIA recognised that when it waived the normal registration fee for its new constructor entry.[6]
The problem we have here - with trying to agree a way forward is, I think, rooted in the FIA's definition of the word "constructor" and the sloppy way that the word "team" is often used as a synonym of the FIA's "constructor" in these articles. In the English language the noun "team", used in relation to sport, means: "A group of players forming one side in a competitive game or sport" or more generally as "Two or more people working together. ‘a team of researchers’".[7] OTOH, the noun "constructor" has a specific definition in F1, which ties it to the name used for the make of the car (or for the make of the engine in the case of engine constructors). So if the team (in the normal English language sense) change their name (because of a sponsor or an ownership change, for example) that automatically means they are a different constructor (in the FIA sense).
So, in summary: the team (in the normal English language sense) can be renamed and otherwise continue as the same physical team, but an FIA constructor cannot, as to do so automatically turns it into a different constructor. Perhaps we need to be more careful in our word choice, and be very careful to distinguish between "team" when used in the normal English sense and "team" when used as a synonym for FIA "constructor". -- DeFacto (talk). 21:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
There you have it in your own source "The WMSC accepted this request on the basis that the team is, in effect, a new entry in the FIA Formula One World Championship.". The team was a new entry, that they decide to make a special exception regarding the entry fee did not change their status. And I was referring to the previous name/next parameters, by the way.Tvx1 20:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Tvx1: no-one denies that because it had a new name it had to be treated as a new entry, because that's the way the FIA rules work. The point here is that it was an existing physical team that was renamed, not a new team too - as conceded by the FIA by their exceptional fee waiver and by the innumerable sources describing the team's history, the name/next parameters are needed to navigate between articles and/or sections within articles covering the team under it's various names - that requirement hasn't gone away. Are you denying that the they were the same physical team (in the pure English sense rather than when its a synonym of "constructor")? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Qualifying/starting grid pictogram[edit]

I figured I'd bring this issue here before I did some reverting. @Aliwal2012: has added pictograms of both the qualifying and starting grid of the 2018 Australian Grand Prix and 2018 Bahrain Grand Prix displaying top-down views of the cars. However, I believe that things like this, or similar to this, have been attempted before but I'd like to get responses from the Project. I personally think it is redundant and does not serve any purpose to add information to the article, this is a graphic made simply for the sake of making a graphic and does not help anyone understand either qualifying or the starting grid of the race. Further, unless you particularly know the differences between the individual driver helmets, there is no way to tell two team cars apart. The359 (Talk) 20:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi everybody, I'm glad you discuss before reverting me!
I brought the cars' pictogram in question over from the fr:wiki where it is used for some years now, first onto af:wiki (my mother tongue) and now onto en:wiki. There is a gentleman on the wiki that is painstakingly reproducing these pictograms for every race's qualifying and starting grid.
I know it looks a bit odd in the article's text, but for me as a newcomer to F1 it makes good sense to see how the grid changes after penalties are applied to different drivers. If you enlarge the template, you will also see that each and every car-pic shows the exact team colours and driver (as you correctly stated the helmet pattern).
I think it is worthwhile to include this, at least it adds some colour to an otherwise dull page!! --Aliwal2012 (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with @The359 — it's completely redundant. And while the efforts of @Odor are not unappreciated, we should not be including content in an article simply because someone took the time to make it, especially when it adds nothing to the article.
As for "adding colour to a dull page", that's the worst argument for inclusion I could think of. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I always felt that these images were strange and I did not quite understand why the German Wikipedia for instance uses them. I would vote against using them, a table should suffice. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the others that this is not an improvement of the articles. All these pictures are not accessible. People using assistive technologies aren't relayed the information. And even for people who don't use them, the graphs are difficult to read. I, for one, cannot distinguish the Williamses and have a high difficulty distinguishing the Haases. Zwerg Nase, these graphs aren't being used on the German counterparts of the contested articles.Tvx1 21:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Aren't they. I think they used to at least... Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Now I, as the creator of these pictograms, feel almost compelled to explain my art. :-) I've been making these pictograms for more than two decades now, but only began uploading them to Wikimedia 7 years ago. I personally prefer looking at images or graphs instead of tables or long lists. So I'm painting them for my own pleasure and don't actively add them to Wikipedia articles. I don't mind at all that you decided not to use my pictograms in the English Wikipedia; I totally understand your reasoning. Some other Wikipedias like to use them (only because of that I learned about Galician language!) and that's reason enough for me to keep uploading them. As I said, I'm not actually creating them for Wikipedia, but for myself. Greetings, Oᴅᴏʀ (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Brazilian Grand Prix winners[edit]

What would be the best treatment for this Template:Brazilian Grand Prix winners navbox? TfD or speedy deletion? If I remember correctly, these navboxes are not supported by the project. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I was also mulling this over; but was going to post here to get other opinions as to whether this was a desirable (or necessary) addition. If a similar template were to be created for each GP by country then some driver articles would have an excessive number of navboxes. I believe it would have to go to TfD as it might not fit CSD criteria. Eagleash (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
TfD might be a better solution. Then (if the decision is "delete") we have something to point to in case this sort of thing happens again in the future. DH85868993 (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
The template nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 15. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed new fields for Template:Infobox motorsport venue[edit]

I've started a discussion regarding whether it would be worthwhile adding "Outright lap record" fields to Template:Infobox motorsport venue. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that treads dangerously close to original research. Most categories only recognise lap times set under race conditions as the records. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Constructors' Standings[edit]

The many edits on the Template:F1 Constructors Standings page suggest that a lot of readers find the sorting by results, not by drivers, counter-intuitve. As do I. So I would like to raise this topic again. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That's the only logical way of sorting, in case when we have more than two drivers during the season. It is clearly seen on the 2017 example with Toro Rosso. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it's merely a question of not being used to it or simple not being aware that this was discussed and changed. Just give it some time to catch on. Once a considerable number of races will have passed it will be clear, at the same time, not a single revert has happened on the previous seasons' articles. This system works without a problem in other similar situations in other motorsports articles. I will point out that we previously wouldn't sort by driver but by number as evidenced in last year's case with Hartley.Tvx1 13:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I think that's a bit misleading. Previous seasons' articles tend to be very stable once the new championship has begun—look at the 2017 article and the way the driver table has stabilised despite the lengthy debate over its structure, it doesn't surprise me that there haven't been any reverts to the results matrix and I don't think you can attribute that solely to the merits of the system used when it's debatable as to whether the change has even been noticed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
And while (as far as I'm aware) none of the previous seasons have been reverted per se, the 2015, 2016 and 2017 Constructors' Championship tables have been "corrected" by various editors over the past couple of weeks: [8][9][10][11], suggesting that the revised format is causing confusion for some readers. DH85868993 (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that the "revised format" is not even being applied in all season articles. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't discussed with regards to the pre-2014 articles. Moreover, there wasn't much of an issue there as those only have two rows per constructors anyway, as said, it just takes some getting used to. Just give it some time.Tvx1 23:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Why wasn't it discussed for pre-2014 articles? You wanted to introduce it in response to the change in car numbering, but evidently the issue exists quite separately to the car numbering. Only applying it to the 2014–2018 articles has appparently caused more problems than it has solved.

Then there's the question of how long it takes to get used to before we need to consider restoring the original format. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Why we have drivers' numbers in the constructors' standings initially? It is just trivia, which increases width of the table and doesn't affect the team place in the standings, while best results actually affect the place in the standings. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Because it allows you to see how a team's campaign unfolded. Renault ran Jolyon Palmer for fifteen races last year, then switched to Sainz, they started scoring points almost straight away. You can't tell me that changes like that don't affect a WCC campaign. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Kovalainen substituted Raikkonen in 2013 and he had worse results, but they had the same numbers, so their using in the table doesn't help to see the change. 09:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
There are other solutions, like using the id markup, or a three-letter driver code. And we're under no obligation to have 100% consistency in the formatting between articles. We should use a style that meets the needs of the article in question first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
You were literally the only person in the discussion late last year that considered that a must for the WCC table. The story of how their season unfolded should not be told via the WCC table, that should be told via the season report and the constructors' articles. The WCC table has no purpose but to display the outcome of the championship, the individual race results are there because they determine who ends higher in case of tie on points. Anything else is beyond the scope of that table.Tvx1 16:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
He asked a question. I answered it. That's all there is to my response. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Formula One proposed for deletion[edit]

FYI, it has been proposed that all Portals (including Portal:Formula One) be deleted. Interested editors are invited to comment at the RfC. DH85868993 (talk) 10:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Good luck to whoever gets tasked with closing that discussion.Tvx1 16:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Monaco Grand Prix winners[edit]

Is anyone concerned about the appearance of this as well as Template:Brazilian Grand Prix winners --Falcadore (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The template nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 15. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Sergey Sirotkin[edit]

Sergey Sirotkin (racing driver) is proposed to move to Sergey Sirotkin, your comment on the proposal will be welcomed here. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)