Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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)

Career results for test drivers[edit]

Currently we include in the career result for Formula one drivers we include races where they were only a test driver (see 2016 and 2017 for Charles Leclerc) as they didn't actually do any races and only participated in a handful of practice sessions I feel these extra rows are completely unnecessary if they only competed as a test driver in that season, so I think that we should get rid of those rows. SSSB (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@SSSB:, I'm absolutely agree with you, and sometime ago I have removed the rows but they were returned. It seems that some users tries recreate DriverDB table which includes test duties. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:F1 under discussion[edit]

FYI, Wikipedia:F1, which currently redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One is under discussion. Note that if the target of Wikipedia:F1 is changed (or if it is changed to a disambiguation page), it will also affect shortcut WP:F1. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:F1, which currently redirects to this page is also under discussion. Any change to this redirect would also affect shortcut WT:F1. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Both discussions were closed as "keep". DH85868993 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, that was completely unnecessary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton passed GA nomination[edit]

Just a heads up that my recent nomination of Lewis Hamilton as a GA has been passed. Formulaonewiki (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Gianbattista Guidotti[edit]

Gianbattista Guidotti was an F1 driver? This is according to Alfa Romeo 158/159 Alfetta, then it is necessary to create your article. --Adriel 00 (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Adriel 00: The table shown at the Alfetta page indicates that he did not start either race. The individual race articles have notes to the effect that he was an unused reserve driver and took no part. If however, he has competed in Formula One, even non-championship, then a page could be created. Small 1994 does not include him in its list of non-qualifiers. Google search shows articles on other language Wikipedias here. Eagleash (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Tires brought for a Grand Prix.[edit]

Would it be beneficial to include the tires brought by Pirelli to each Grand Prix similar to this. Personally I think this would be an improvement so then the article can talk about seperate tyre compounds without having to constantly expalin the different drivers using different tires, however, I thought it would be constructive to discuss this first. SSSB (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I like this idea, I think with the terminology used in the weekend reports it would help those less knowledgeable/well-versed in Formula 1 understand the impact of the different tyre compounds. Do we know if there are icons for the new tyre compounds beyond the ones used in that article? Formulaonewiki (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
It also appears in the corrosponding aticles in French, Spanish and Italian and it also appears in the other race reports in those languages (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Pr%C3%AAmio_de_M%C3%B4naco_de_2018). As i said earlier I think it would be beneficial. SSSB (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Or would it be more usefull to link each mention of tires to Formula One tyres#Tyre summary. SSSB (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

e.g. For the 2018 Monaco Grand Prix it would look something like this

Tires for this race
Compound name Colour Tread Driving conditions Grip Durability
Hypersoft Pink Slick Dry 3 – Most grip 1 – Least durable
Ultrasoft Purple 2 2
Supersoft Red 1 – Least grip 3 – Most durable
Intermediate Green Treaded Wet (light standing water) N/A N/A
Wet Dark Blue Wet (heavy standing water) N/A N/A

I think this would be better than linking to Formula One tyres#Tyre summary as this gives a clear indicaation to the tires available for each race. SSSB (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Our race reports used to have a background section which mentioned which tyres Pirelli supplied during the weekend in question (e.g. here, here, here). I don't know why these aren't present anymore, but obviously they should be. I'm opposed to using a table with icons or colors as these don't really serve to improve the understanding of the article in question since the tyres are not visually present anywhere else in the articles. Moreover, there are readers who can only see some colors or even none at all.Tvx1 11:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying about the colors, that could be removed, however, I still think that the table is better as it shows it clearer than simlpy listing and as I said before it makes it clear that the implications of using different tires are. SSSB (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I still think that takes a lot of space for something than can be simply conveyed in two or three sentences.Tvx1 18:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The problem with the examples you provided is that there is no indication of the implication of the tire. A reader with no prior knowledge of F1 is not going to know how the hypersoft, ultrasoft and supersoft difer without an explanation, if you coveyed it in a sentence(s) it is likly to sound something like this
"Pirelli brought the hypersoft, ultrasoft and supersoft to this grand prix for dry driving conditions, the supersoft has the least grip and the most durabillity and the hypersoft has the most grip but is the least durable with the ultrasoft having the midddle ground both in terms of durabillity and grip, pirelli also brought the intermediate tire for light standing water conditions and the full wet for heavy standing water conditions."
Personally, I think this information could be conveyed a lot clearer in a table as seen above. SSSB (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Prose is always preferable to tables. This table adds nothing that prose cannot. It's also a very large table that conveys very little information. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Prisonermonkeys. A table takes lots of space for little added information. We don't need to re-explain what a tyre compound is in every race report. We have wikilinks for that. We can provide wikilinks to the article on formula one tyres and to the relevant part of the glossary of motorsports terms. Many of our race report have received Good Article or even Featured Article status with the information on the provided tyres being simply presented in prose.Tvx1 12:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I at least think we should include the table in the season report and then we can link back to that in race reports, the problem with linking directly to Formula One tyres#Tyre summary is that it only shows the tyre compounds for the current season meaning that if F1 returned to remove tyre compounds from its range Formula One tyres would not be as helpful as readers wouldn't know where the tyre fitted in the range. SSSB (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The championship article is not a suitable place for such a table, either. The whole idea of a table is unnecessary and the "grip" and "durability" entrirs should be expressed as a function—but even then, the grip and durability are often affected by the circuit surface, atmospheric conditions and car setup, it seems to be included for the sake of having it, which is the worst possible reason to have it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Tables should never be used as a substitution for straightforward well-written text. Tables should only be used where the topic is too complicated to be explained simply. --Falcadore (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Formula One polesitters[edit]

Are we okay with the "Driver with most pole positions in each season" table? I like the concept of the table and would like to see it in the other lists, but not sure if it complies with WP:NOTSTATS. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTSTATS talks about stats which lack context or reduce readability, neither of these apply here. SSSB (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject[edit]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage; in place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background[edit]

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system, on May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Daniil Kvyat's importance?[edit]

We have rated Kvyat to be of high importance (seeTalk:Daniil Kvyat) is this because it has not been updated since he stopped as a regular F1 driver because if not I would have to argue against this as I would rate him to be low importance as defined by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One/Assessment or mid importance due to him being Ferrari development driver. If it is genuine could someone please explain why.SSSB (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Clearly low importance. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Changed by User:Falcadore. SSSB (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Other drivers who scored podiums in F1 are mid-importance. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Assessment#Importance scale:
Article type Top High Mid Low
Drivers Multiple world championships World champions or
10+ wins or
Current driver
2+ wins or 10+ podiums Others
indicates his article should be rated low importance. DH85868993 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Standardisation of season report importance[edit]

Currently on the Importance scale there is no giudelines of how to rate the importance this causes a problem where the seasons importnace is currently as follows:

  • Top - 1994, 2015
  • High - 1950-1952, 1983, 1989, 2006-2010
  • Mid - 1982, 1991, 2003-2005, 2011
  • Low - The rest.

Personally, I can't see a system in use here and I think it important that we find one.

If we put any possible suggestions below and then we can see which we prefer

SSSB's suggestion[edit]

This is my suggestion but feel free to add your own

SSSB's suggestion
top high mid low
1950 and current season First win for constructor or driver other next season

SSSB (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Corvus tristis's suggestion[edit]

top high mid low
1950 and current season Seasons with major sporting and technical regulation changes (2009, 2010, 2014, etc) other next season

Corvus tristis (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

So your suggestion is that the importance of the sporting events during the season should have no influence on the importance of season articles? Seasons like 1970, 1993 and 1982 which featured the deaths of major title protagonists, or 1980 and again 82 which saw peak events in the conflict between FISA and FOCA, or 1991, 1976, 1995, 1958, 2008 or 2010 where we saw high profile conflicts between drivers for the title or 1955 where a major upheaval in the sport - the Le Mans disaster - saw the cancellation of several Grands Prix?
Wikipedia is driven by notability, and sporting conflicts have been given greater notability in the public sphere rather than changes to technical regulations. For further example, 1966 the return to power, saw the major teams perform in an underwhelming fashion and they were embarrassed by a smaller team who intelligently but unspectularly won the title through efficiency while incompetance and inability to build quality cars blighted others. 1966 is primarily remembered for trivia - the champion winning the title in his own car rather than someone elses. 1967 is better remembered for the first Cosworth - again trivia - 1968 the death of Clark it would not be until the 1970s that the return to power finally delivered on the major technical change it had promised in '66 with a competitive season between several teams and drivers. --Falcadore (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, the point of the whole discussion is that we need a clear criteria for high-level importance articles, as now we have a disorder with the season report importance. Maybe your proposal is better (my proposal contains only one criterion, which is not enough, ideally it should be a few criteria and if the article meet at least two of them than it should have a high importance status), but it should be summarised to become a criteria, because "high profile conflicts" is very subjective. Why you have omitted 2007 which had three drivers, competing for the title till the last race, change to the monotyre supplier which reshuffled the constructors' standings and the Spygate? P.S. 1994 season featured the death of major title protagonist, not 1993.Corvus tristis (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis: and @Falcadore:, you both have very good points which should be considered but the problem is that both of your suggestions are quite subjective (when does a minor technical regulation change become a major one), furthermore having read the discussion thus far I think that a combination of the discussed would be the best way to go about it, but untill you both remove the high levels of subjectiveness from your proposals I fear that we may be unable to reach a difinitive consensus and if you are unable to remove the subjectivness I fear that we may need to go through and discuss the importance of each season independently, (should be done here to avoid clogging this up).

Untill then are we in agreement that 1950 should be top importance and 2019 should be low? SSSB (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and as you said in the first place the current one also should be have the top importance. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Importance is a subjective word. Clear criteria will always be impossible. --Falcadore (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Drivers for example had quite clear criteria. The season reports also can have clear criteria. Of course, there is always some level of subjectivity, but the goal is to reduce it with the criteria, which is possible. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Points distribution tables removes[edit]

During the last few hours Mark McWire has been unilaterally removing the points distribution tables from the F1 season articles. I raise this here because I'm not convinced that this is a good idea. I'm under the impression that it always has been our goal to create self-explanatory independent articles which do not force our readers to have to go to another article to understand a part of it. Any thought?Tvx1 22:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple points scoring systems that have been used throughout the sport's history. Putting the table in the championship article presents the most relevant system to the reader. Without the inclusion of the table in the article, the results matricies may be indecipherable to the casual reader because it is unclear how the points tally is calculated given that the matrix only shows the results for each race, not the points scored. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that’s exactly what I was thinking as well.Tvx1 23:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I also think the changes should be reverted. It makes more sense to me to have the tables easily accessible in the season summary articles rather than directing the reader off to a separate article. DH85868993 (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree, they should be reverted to avoid confusion and stop people from having to go on to separate articles. SSSB (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I reverted the removals.Tvx1 18:57, 21 June 2018 (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
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 event Next 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)