Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Formula One (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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)

Proposed changes to race report templates[edit]

For several years now, WP:F1 has followed a policy of assigning flagicons to venues rather than Grands Prix in championship articles. They look like this:

Round Grand Prix Circuit Date
1 Australian Grand Prix Australia Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit, Melbourne 25 March

Rather than this:

Round Grand Prix Circuit Date
1 Australia Australian Grand Prix Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit, Melbourne 25 March

The justification for this has always been that some races do not take place in "countries"—the European Grand Prix and Caesars Palace spring to mind. However, Template:Infobox Grand Prix race report continues this practice despite the policy being different elsewhere. For example:

France  2018 French Grand Prix
Race details[1]

Race 8 of 21 in the 2018 Formula One World Championship

← Previous race Next race →
Circut Paul Ricard 2018 layout map.png
Layout of the Circuit Paul Ricard

So I think we should make some changes to this infobox, based on some of the parameters in Template:Infobox rally. The infobox would now look like this:

2018 French Grand Prix
Pirelli Formula 1 Grand Prix de France 2018
Round 8 of 21 in the 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship
← Previous eventNext event →
Circut Paul Ricard 2018 layout map.png
Layout of the Circuit Paul Ricard

In terms of the detail, it's really just the blue-grey box at the top of the rally report infobox that I'm looking to insert into the Grand Prix race report; everything else would remain the same. I think it's a neater solution than the current layout and one that is consistent with other WP:F1 policies. I have asked @DH85868993 and he seems to think that a few tweaks to the markup will make the changes without needing to manually overhaul the infoboxes in the articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection about flagicon removal, but i'm not sure if there is a proper reason for the use of the the blue-grey box at the top. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
It gives equal weight to the common name and the formal title (some of the primary references that we include, such as qualifying and race results, use the full title) and addresses formatting issues. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: To clarify: Are you proposing that the "Official name" field should be moved from the body of the infobox to the blue-grey box at the top? DH85868993 (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@DH85868993 — yes, that's exactly what I'm proposing. That and removing the flagicons. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I support removing the flagicons since they are often confusing (e.g. European Grand Prix using only one flagicon even though race has taken place in five different countries) and removing the caption above the infobox. I'm not in favor of squeezing the official name of the race in the infobox header. It looks very cluttered and is just not necessary. The infobox already has a suitable place for the official name. The header should be just that. A header explaining what the infobox deals with and not a place to squeeze the most commonly used names into.Tvx1 12:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Except they are the most commonly-used names. We already use them in the opening sentence of the articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@DH85868993 — I think there is enough support here to justify some of the changes. We can definitely remove the flagicons, and the blue-grey box would correct some of the display issues. I still think there is merit in the dual titles, although that may require further discussion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
OK. I'll aim to make the changes some time within the next couple of days. DH85868993 (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
2018 French Grand Prix

Race 8 of 21 in the 2018 Formula One World Championship

← Previous race Next race →
Circut Paul Ricard 2018 layout map.png
Layout of the Circuit Paul Ricard
Race details[1]
Date 24 June 2018
Official name Formula 1 Pirelli Grand Prix de France 2018
Location Circuit Paul Ricard
Le Castellet, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, France

OK. I've removed the flagicon and moved the race title inside the infobox. I also moved the "Race details" header from the top of the box to below the track map. I left the heading colour as the existing light grey rather than the steelblue of the rally infobox. But it can be changed to steelblue if there's support for that. The top of the infobox for the 2018 French Grand Prix now looks as shown at right (compare with the original above). DH85868993 (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@DH85868993 — it's PM here, posting from an IP address. I like the changes; I think the grey instead of the steel blue works particularly well. I still think having the official title under the common name is worth including. It's the first thing we acknowledge in the prose and you can regularly find references to it throughout a Grand Prix weekend. And since we're not dealing with an article title, it's not a COMMONNAME issue. (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Although I disagree with the departure of the flags, I totally see the point of this to finally try and disambiguate the issue! Cheers guys! - J man708 (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

2014 and 2015 teams and drivers tables[edit]

Why we have entirely different tables for just two seasons? The format of the tables haven't proved by the time as it was dropped after 2015. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis — those two tables contain the sortable function. When the new numbering system was introduced in 2014, there was extensive debate as to how best to organise the table. Ultimately we opted to arrange the table alphabetically by constructor and then numerically by driver (except in the case of a mid-season driver change). The sortable function was added to give readers flexibility, but because some cells (like drivers) are one cell high and others (like the entrant) are two cells high, the sortable function was not working. The format of those tables is a result of trying to find a solution to the problem.
As for why it was discontinued, I think it's down to the markup. It's some of the most complex markup I have seen on Wikipedia (outside templates) and very easy to break. It's also a real deterrent to new editors taking part (it's one thing to use complex markup to dissuade vandalism, but those tables took it too far). With no apparent tangible benefit to it, it was easier to go back to the old style than to retain it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I wonder whether you really know anything about the markup. It’s not complex at all. The only difference is that it contains class=“wikitable sortable” instead of class=“wikitable”. The rest of those tables use the same basic markup elements as the others, albeit much less of them. There is only one row per constructor and there are no “rowspan”’s in them.Tvx1 15:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm on the Prisonermonkeys' side on this. The sortable format is messier (it has nothing common with the knowledge of the markup) and harder for editing unlike the format that we use in the most of the seasons. I guess that we can at least do a survey, about do we still need the sortable format for the tables or not. I agree that for the time when it was a transition for the new number system it was a good solution. But is the situation is the same for now? Corvus tristis (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
"The only difference is that it contains class=“wikitable sortable” instead of class=“wikitable”"
There's a multitude of additional markup, such as "data-sort-value". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Corvus tristis — I'm not sure a vote is necessary. I think we can chalk it up to an edit-consensus and remove the sortable function from the 2014 and 2015 tables. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. There was huge discussion leading to that table format and we should not act like it doesn’t exist. IMHO those tables are actually easier to read and edit. There are much less rows, so there is much less markup to sift through. The date-sort-value markup simply needs to be added once at the start of the season and that’s it. Regarding reading the lower number of lines makes it much easier on the eyes.Tvx1 12:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
The rowspan and colspan markup is really basic markup. They're probably one of the first things a new editor learns. The 2014 and 2015 tables are full of markup—text alignments, non-breaking spaces, data-sort-values and the like. Granted, a lot of that is probably unnecessary; I'd say it's leftovers from the initial experiments with the sortable function. While the 2014 and 2015 tables might look better visually, the post-2015 tables are not unreadable (far from it) and much more accessible for editing. A sheaf of complex markup is a pretty steep price to pay for minor visual improvements. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Tvx1, if this format had so much benefits, then why it wasn't implemented in 2016-2019 articles? Maybe it is not that simple? Where all the supporters from the huge discussion? The consensus may change. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
The only reason I can think of is that we simply forget to apply it to the table at the start of the 2016 season. And that people simply forgot about it. That doesn’t mean the benefits of it don’t exist.Tvx1 17:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, how you can forget about something that "easier and consensus-backed" and was just a season ago?.. Probably it has some benefits, but they didn't overweight simplicity of the 2016-2019 tables format. So the state of the consensus is doubtful at least. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we collectively forgot. I think we came to the conclusion that it was too much work for too little benefit and not worth continuing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Then maybe you could direct us to where “we” came to that conclusion. I certainly didn’t.Tvx1 12:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If we didn't come to that decision, why was the format abandoned? If everyone but you forgot, why didn't you do more to continue implementing it? (PM, posting from an IP.) (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not getting us anywhere here. These tables have been working for years without any complaint. Then why should we create a problem where none exists? Just leave things that aren't broken as they are and move on to more pressing matters. Like for instance writing reports for ongoing seasons and races.Tvx1 20:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
2014-2015 tables aren't easy for transition to the 2016-2019 format, so it is the main reason why nobody tried before me. Problem exists, since there are only two tables, which completely different from the other (1950-2013 and 2016-2019). It is the exact case where we should keep consistency. Neither 2016-2019 format is broken, and nobody complained since 14 June, excepting you. 2016-2019 format is a reflection of an edit-consensus. If you need to write reports then do it, but stop referring to the outdated consensus and pretend that 2014-2015 format is easy for editing. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Consistency is not an argument. In fact this whole issue came up as a result of our decision against consistency by having a tyre column in some articles and no tyre column in others. No one has been complaining about the format in the four years these articles have used them. The format is very is easy to edit for the 2014-2015 articles because the table is complete and there simply isn't anything to edit at all right now. You cannot decide among the two of you to ignore a massive discussion like that one. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There is no evidence whatsoever that currently anyone fails to understand the contents of the tables in question.Tvx1 17:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Edit-consensus in 2016-2019 articles is a way larger, it's not just an opinion of the two users in the discussion. Keeping the different format for just two seasons because of the one user who doesn't want change to the format which adopted by the current edit-consensus is a complete nonsense. P.S. It seems that you just can't accept that sometimes consensus may change. Corvus tristis (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Any edit-consensus from the 2016 to 2019 articles does not automatically apply to the 2014-2015 articles. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Edit consensus cannot overrule community consensus from such a massive discussion anyway. No one has ever complained about those tables so there is just no need to change them. Don't fix things which aren't broken. Stop wasting your and our time on an issue which just doesn't exist. There are things which actually require our time. This weekend's upcoming race for instance.Tvx1 19:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems that you advised guidance essay, without actually reading it. "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged." So, of course Edit consensus can overrule as the community consensus was reached in the other circumstances. But now 2016-2019 format get a support from the users and nobody tried at least to convert table in the 2016-2019 articles to the 2014-2015 format. Now you can't get even one supporter of your position in the same community. And please stop telling me what I should do. Corvus tristis (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I support keeping the sortable tables in the 2014/15 articles. There has been no consensus, "edit" or otherwise to replace them in this way.
That's not how "Edit consensus" works. It only applies to the article in which the edits were made. The articles in question here each have their own "edit consensus", which, up until the changes made over recent days, included the sortable tables. That was the stable condition, the condition that should be restored until a new consensus is established - per WP:BRD. What happens in other articles is irrelevant. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Do you have any valid argument excepting WP:ILIKEIT and outdated consensus? It seems that you haven't bothered to read the quote above "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". What happens in 2016-2019 articles is relevant because they are the same Formula One season reports with permanent numbers for drivers. If we consider Wikipedia an encyclopedia, than we should convey the information the same way in the exact cases, not hiding behind irrelevant consensus which was made in the other circumstances. P.S. None of you still haven't provided any link to the discussion where consensus was achieved. Corvus tristis (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Do you actually have any argument beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT? No one whatsoever has ever complained about those tables since they were applied to those article. So I really can't see why you are so obsessed with changing them. As I said before, don't try to fix something that isn't broken.Tvx1 17:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
My argument is consistency (actually broken and is what I trying to fix) which I outlined more than one time. In bold font this time if you don't see it again. I don't have any strong opinion on the look of the table. I will be fine with any format, but it should be one for both 2014-2015 and 2016-2019. The fact that nor you, nor anyone even haven't tried to keep the format in the 2016-2019 articles is a proof that the format isn't easy for work with the table. Outdated consensus and your preference aren't valid reasons to break consistency. Corvus tristis (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
How can you keep playing the "consistency" card when this whole thing came up when you introduced "inconsistency" to these articles with regard to having a tyre column? It demonstrates more than clearly that "consistency" is not a necessity. Anyway, I'd be more than happy to apply the consensus format from 2014 to 2016 and onwards. It's not that difficult to handle at all and it only takes a couple of minutes per article to implement.Tvx1 13:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Then why it is take you so long, even after you remembered about abandoned format? Go further then, I wouldn't interfere. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
I removed this entry because the dispute is between more than two editors. Consider opening a thread at WP:DRN. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 12:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for Comment is another alternative for consensus-building, particularly as this affects a series of articles. It would be good to link the "massive discussion" of community consensus and be clear which tables are referred to (the articles each have five big tables; I assume it's the first, under § Teams and drivers) and which years have different versions.
To make some general comments, the sortable feature is one of the reasons for moving lists into tables. However, this tends to be for long tables with a considerable amount of data. In this case I can see a complete table on my monitor at once, so I can take it all in visually. (I'm not sure how mobile users would deal with it, with or without a sort.) Sortability could make it easier to spot some patterns in the data, but (if I'm looking at the table in question) I'm not sure of the benefit of sorting by constructor or chassis model number. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, your assumption is correct. The first, under § Teams and drivers. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism of 2018 Hungarian Grand Prix[edit]

An unregistered user edited the page at 10.30am UCT +1 with racist language with reference to Lewis Hamilton, have removed it, but would like it to be reported, but don't know how! Thank you. Hesky10 (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hesky10: Thanks for pointing this out. I have warned the user concerned. If the disruption continues it can be reported at WP:AIV. Eagleash (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

2020 article[edit]

I think we've got enough information to create 2020 Formula One World Championship. We usually create them about eighteen months out from the start of the championship. Unfortunately, I cannot create new articles from an IP (and I'm only planning to hang around until a particular article is finished; after that I might retire). (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with that. We have little 2020 specific information right now. No new race contracts from 2020 yet, now new driver contracts from 2020 yet. In fact the drivers are storting out their 2019 drives at the moment. No new teams from 2020. No major rule changes for 2020 either.Tvx1 03:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree that is quite early for an article. Maybe it will be possible to make draft like 2021? Corvus tristis (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@Connor McCormick — why did you create the 2020 article by copying and pasting the 2019 article and then changing almost nothing about it? As far as I can tell, the only difference is changing "2019" to "2020" in the opening sentence and adding one race to the list of Grands Prix without a contract? If you're going to create articles, you need to add something of substance; this simply isn't good enough. @Tvx1, @Corvus tristis — this might need to go to AfD. (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Afd'd it is.Tvx1 18:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

New article[edit]

Editors may be interested in the recently-created article: Hunt–Lauda rivalry. DH85868993 (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Prost-Senna rivalry should be created, currently redirected to Alain Prost#Rivalry with Ayrton Senna. --Adriel 00 (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sortable functions[edit]

I see an editor has recently added the sortable function to all post-2013 articles. Where is the demand for this? When it was first applied in 2014, it was hailed as being necessary to make the articles accessible; when it was abandoned in 2016, not a word was spoken about it being inaccessible. We should at least have a discussion about it before unilaterally applying it. (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It's all in the above discussion you took part in. I don't know how accessibility is an issue here. Both versions are accessible to all readers.Tvx1 13:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
And in that discussion, no consensus was reached. Once again, you get your way despite the consensus, not because of it.
As for accessibility, look to the original discussion in 2014. It was argued that sortability was needed because it gave readers the freedom to arrange the table as they saw fit, thus improving access. (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


Hi, is there any discussion about to put DNF replacing Ret? I'm from the spanish WP:F1, and I want to see the arguments. Thanks, shaGuarF1 16:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC).

No it's not being discussed here. Ret is used because DNF is ambiguous. Cars can be classified without finishing.Tvx1 16:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, from my point of view, for example in the 2009 Malaysian Grand Prix, all cars are DNF, because the race was over under red flag, not chequered flag, thanks for reply. shaGuarF1 16:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
But, using the example of the 2009 Malaysian Grand Prix, the cars did finish. Even though it was a truncated race. So 'DNF' would not be appropriate there either. Orphan Wiki 16:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The cars finished the lap which was used to determine the result. So they did finish the race. The cars who did not finish that lap where listed with per what they actually performed (+1 lap/Classified non-finisher/Retired) By the way, the Spanish article on the 2009 Malaysian Grand Prix has incorrect results. Here is the official result and here is a FIA lap chart showing the same results.Tvx1 19:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Didn't see the results, fixed, ty. I don't pretend to replace Ret with DNF, I only was just asking, by the way in the spanish WP I showed my disagreement with that petition before posting this. shaGuarF1 02:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
It's still wrong. The number of laps completed and distance to the winner isn't correct for all the drivers.Tvx1 11:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Ferrari 212 F1[edit]

After reading an article about the Ferrari 212 F1 in RTLGP Magazine No. 6 2009 I noticed there are a lot of mistakes regarding this car on most webisites not only wikipedia. This Dutch Magazine is a highly regarded racing magazine. And the info is backed up by Ferrari Historian Michael Müller who has studied this Ferrari era for more than 10 years.

Two 212 F1 chassis were built. One car with a Dion rear axle (chassis 102) and one one with a swing axle (chassis 110). Ferrari sold the 110 chassis to Rudi Fischer. His team Ecurie Espadon used the car in three World Championship races in 1951 all with the 212 2.5 V12 engine. In 1952 chassis 110 was used at the Swiss, French, British, German and Italian GP. As the World Championship was now used Formula two rules the car was fitted with an Ferrari 166 2.0 V12 engine. Ecurie Espadon only used the 110 chassis at one World Championship race in 1953. Max de Terra drove the car at the Swiss GP, again with the Ferrari 166 2.0 V12 engine.

For the other World Championship races Ecurie Espadon entered the Ferrari 500 that Rudi Fischer used in 1952. Peter Hirt drove that Ferrari 500 at the Swiss GP and Kurt Adolff used the 500 at the German GP.

I would be happy to correct al this info on Wikipedia. But I thought I'd bring it up here first as most sources on the internet state otherwise and I wanted to get your thoughts on it. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Circuit Gilles Villeneuve[edit]

I saw this edit by an IP on my watchlist and almost reverted it, before stopping myself. I just wanted to check what the rest of you thought. Is it a street circuit? For sure, it's narrow and the walls are close by, but there is no mention of it being a street circuit within the body of it's article. This is unlike articles for other street circuits, where it is made very clear that they are street circuits specifically. Orphan Wiki 22:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

A circuit being a street circuit has nothing to do with narrowness or position of walls. The Gilles Villeneuve circuit is a street circuit because it takes places on what are normal streets outside of the GP Weekend.Tvx1 23:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I am fully aware it has nothing to do with narrowness or position of walls, Tvx1. What I was asking is if anyone knew 100% whether it is a street circuit. This is because it has been removed from the list of street circuits in the article I mentioned, and there is nothing about it being a street circuit in it's article. Orphan Wiki 12:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)