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)

Historic F1[edit]

Some articles have been created on seasons of historic formula one racing (e.g. this and this). Are these really worth keeping. I'm not convinced they meet the policies and guidelines.Tvx1 19:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced edits[edit]

Could everyone please keep an eye on the 2018 car articles? An editor has been going around adding unsourced content—usually related to fuel suppliers—despite multiple messages advising him of the need to source his content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

GA review.[edit]

2016 FIA Formula One World Championship is currently undergoing GA review. An help to get this to be passed is welcome.Tvx1 23:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing redundant columns[edit]

This one has been bothering me for a while now: I think the team and driver tables are full of redundant columns—namely the entrant column, this is taken from the 2018 article:

Entrant Constructor Chassis Power unit Tyres Race drivers
No. Driver name
Italy Scuderia Ferrari Ferrari SF71H Ferrari 063 P 5 Germany Sebastian Vettel
7 Finland Kimi Räikkönen

But my question is what does the entrant column actually add? I have gone back as far as 1980 and in the vast majority of cases, the entrant and constructor are one and the same. This has been written into the rules for quite some time; in the few exceptions, such as Midland/Spyker in 2006, they nevertheless retained the constructor name. So what does the above table do that this version does not?

Constructor Chassis Power unit Tyres Race drivers
No. Driver name
Ferrari SF71H Ferrari 063 P 5 Germany Sebastian Vettel
7 Finland Kimi Räikkönen

As far as I can tell, all it really does is name the sponsor (when there is a sponsor to be named); in this era of commercial partnerships with car manufacturers—such as Aston Martin Red Bull Racing and Alfa Romeo Sauber F1 Team—it implies a relationship that is not neccessarily there, especially since the articles do not cover sponsorship changes. Furthermore, the constructor name is the common name, so I cannot see why the entrant name is needed, it appears that they have been carried over from articles where many entrants could use the same chassis and remain in place for the sake of maintaining continuity between articles—but as has been demonstrated by the shift from "19XX/20XX Formula One season" to "19XX/20XX FIA Formula One World Championship", we can have two separate styles without being disruptive.

So here is what I am proposing: that we remove the "entrant" column from championship articles when the entrant and the constructor are one and the same. Because if you had to break it down, only the constructor, chassis, power unit and race driver columns are absolutely needed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

... Anyone? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
If we keeping even tyre column section for the sake of consistency, how we can have some articles with entrant column and some articles without?.. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
If we're only doing things for the sake of consistency, then we're doing things for the wrong reasons. We should make decisions based on the needs of the article first and if those decisions happen to create consistency, great—but if not, we shouldn't sacrifice the integrity of the article for the sake of consistency.
Ultimately, it boils down to this: for some time now, the entrant and the constructor have been one and the same. That makes one of the columns redundant and if the only reason to keep both is to create consistency with other articles, then I think that creates a greater need to remove one of them.
(As for the tyres, I see no reason to keep the column for years with a single tyre supplier. A line of prose explaining the control tyre works just fine in Formula 2 articles, so I see no reason why it cannot work in Formula 1 articles, but I don't want to get distracted by this issue.) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I really don't see how having this column "sacrifices the integrity of the article".Tvx1 15:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Because it's promoting the addition of redundant content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
How does that sacrifice integrity?Tvx1 02:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Because if there's one redundant column, why not include other content that "might be useful"? But please, answer my original question: what purpose does the entrant column serve when the entrant and the column are one and the same? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I really think you do not understand what "article integrity" means. Moreover I don't think these columns are redundant at all even now that the entrants are always consider the constructors of the cars, the constructor name doesn't always contain a meaningful part of the entrant's name. There a clear cases like HRT or MRT or ,in 2011, Lotus were our reader would be left without a meaningful name of the team; in a case like this year it would remove interesting information like the presence of Aston Martin and Alfa Romeo. We don't need to reinvent these tables every season.Tvx1 12:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Interesting does not mean relevant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I can’t see why it wouldn‘t be relevant.Tvx1 21:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Because they're sponsors. Their involvement with the team is limited to decals on the cars, they don't own, operate or influence the entries in any way. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The main source of income for F1 teams for the last 45-50 years does not influence in the entries in any way?! -- Pc13 (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Are you talking about the prize money or the cut of the television revenues? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
No, sponsorship.Tvx1 02:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The prize money and cut of TV revenues is worth more than sponsorship. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you have any proof of that?Tvx1 14:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Why don't you provide the proof I asked for two days ago first? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. You are minimizing this way to much. It's more than just decoration of the cars. Without the Alfo Romeo deal, Sauber would simply not be competing in 2018.Tvx1 16:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you have any proof of that? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The Renault R31 competed under the team name Lotus Renault. Removing the "Entrant" column would mean that the table would not mention Lotus at all, which I think is wrong. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree, the same issue with Manor Marussia F1 Team in 2015. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
It's even worse in 2016 when their constructor name was simply "MRT". Removing that column would leave our readers without any proper name of that team. Same thing with Hispania Racing team from 2010 until 2012.Tvx1 21:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I would keep the "entrant" column as it is clearly not redundant per all the reasons given above but I would remove the long-time redundant "tyre" column as it adds no value whatsoever. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
That was thoroughly discussed and no consensus was achieved to remove it.Tvx1 03:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

1982 FIA Formula One World Championship[edit]

Hey everybody. I have spent the last couple of weeks working on the 1982 season article, the lead and some cleanup in the footnotes are still open, but other than that, I have worked through the prose and the sourcing. If anyone of you had the time to look over the article, that would be very much appreciated. My goal is to bring it to GA and ultimately FA status. My biggest concern is the "Background" section, which I think might not be comprehensible enough for laypeople. What do you think? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I have had a look at the background section and I think it's comprehensible for the most part. The technology section might not comprehensible enough for laypeople, but I think it's nearly impossible to make it more understandable for people who don't know much or anything about the technical side of Formula 1. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced changes[edit]

An editor [1] is making unsource changes to Formula One artcles. Any substance to them? Britmax (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Check the entry list on the 2018 season article. Just because RBR have a title sponsor this season doesn't mean it needs referencing on every article it is mentioned. Bbb2007 (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
It would be more helpful if you explained your changes, using edit summaries. Britmax (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2018 (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)

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)