Portal talk:Formula One/Archive2

Idea

If anyone talks here what can we do to revamp the Portal. We'd need a reliable team who can update it. Chubbennaitor 16:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, myself and Apterygial (I can't remember how to spell it, sorry) have put ourselves forward. I presume you are going to help, so I think one or two others and we should be OK. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 20:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No-one can spell it. But here's how: APT (because I am) ER (because I work well in high pressure environments) Y (because I ask questions) GIAL (no smart remark here). Apterygial 00:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I say "Apertygial". Anyway. What can we do. Remove the boxes would be an idea and remove the horrible colour. I would add more relevant things and make the important parts bigger. Chubbennaitor 20:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to expand on that? The colour scheme can be changed easily. I think what we really need to do is get my project up and going, then make some sort of design that suits the needs of my project (and Apterygial's MII) and also the WP. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 22:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. How about instead of relying on humans to update it, we get the software to do it? Take a look at the featured Portal:Dogs. See the way it randomises the articles. Say we did that: we could have our 10 FAs on random, so they update automatically, then when we get a new FA we just add it the list. Sad people like me can spend hours sitting there purging the cache and looking for the next combination. We could even have different sections: "Featured race report", "Featured car", "Featured person", as well as having the DYKs and the picture on random. This would encourage people to expand in areas which don't have too many FAs (cars only has one). I agree with Chubb; that colour has to go, someone liked McLaren a little too much and that doesn't translate too well to flat colours. Apterygial 00:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all the above. There is need for a new and a bit more pleasing color and the randomization also sounds like a great idea. Also, you can consider adding GAs to that list. They are also worked very well on and represent significant work of among F1 articles. ^LeaveSleaves 05:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've thought about it more since I added that comment. We could have our current month by month selected article, and once that month is up it could be added to one of the other pools (so come February 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix could be added to the race reports), as would all GAs (which, in retrospect, could give us more variety). I guess the portal should have three aims:

1. To promote F1 in general.
2. To promote WP:F1.
3. To encourage people to work hard on improving F1 articles.

All proposals put forward on this page should be aimed at furthering those three aims. Apterygial 06:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

All of Apterygial's big ideas, in one small section

Alright. I'm motivated to work hard on something, so we should see if we can get this portal moving while I am still this motivated. Here are my ideas in different areas (comments and/or suggestions should be given below the appropriate subheadings):

Selected Article

We keep going the way we are, but we get more organised about it. We make sure the article is picked before the start of the next month. Selection will always favour FAs before GAs, and older promotions before newer ones. Once the month is finished, the article gets added into the appropriate pool (next section). Apterygial 05:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the most recent FA's and GA's as hte selected article? Chosen by whoever decides to vote? Chubbennaitor 16:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to reduce the bureaucracy here. The system of votes, as you can see above, did not work and did not last. The system I proposed ensures we favour FAs before GAs (as we should, we should be encouraging people to reach the top level) and older ones before newer ones to ensure every article eventually gets its shot on the portal. Apterygial 23:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support this, with one minor caveat: if there is more than one unused FA or GA available for a given month, then the article chosen should be the one with the least similarity to its predecessor. In the past, I've tried to avoid having consecutive selected articles that are, for example, two race reports from the same season.--Diniz(talk) 21:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. So the next selected article would be 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix under the proposed system. Apterygial 23:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Other selected areas

We get all our current GAs and FAs and put them in the appropriate pool - Selected Race, Selected Biography, Selected Car, Selected Picture. They are then put on a randomiser, so every new page view results in a different combination. This serves three purposes:

1. Helps dig our best work out that is never seen on the portal any more.
2. Gives morons like me something to do (purge, purge, purge...).
3. We don't have to update this all the time, it will update itself. No bots, it is all in the software. Apterygial 05:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, if someone has the time and energy to set it up in the first place. I believe the Motorsport Portal already uses such an automated, randomised system.--Diniz(talk) 21:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see if I do have the energy. Apterygial 23:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Selected Picture

We put out a casting call for interesting pictures related to F1, with an emphasis on non-recent pictures (i.e., those from the early decades of F1). All pictures must be free use and will be vetted by a WP:F1 member experienced in image policy (that means you, LeaveSleaves). Captions which illustrate how interesting the pictures are should be given, up to 100 words. Apterygial 05:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Can it be from any season? Chubbennaitor 16:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm expecting a flood of recent pictures, so I'm trying to encourage earlier ones to even it out. Apterygial 23:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Another thumbs-up from me!--Diniz(talk) 21:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We've found none at WP:F1/NW. Who would have the overall vote? Chubbennaitor 16:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we move away from this idea of votes? This isn't a reward system, this is about getting a great portal. I'll put my hand up to pick them, and if anyone has any problem with what I do pick then they are free to raise those concerns with me. Apterygial 03:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK

I'm more than happy to use our existing DYK list, but the current system of rotations is ridiculous. The DYKs can be broken up into groups of four, with a picture (which cannot be in the selected picture, we should not have doubles) and then these are randomised on the portal. Apterygial 05:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. How easy is this to do, and who is willing to do it? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 16:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

They get broken up into the groups and given their own page, and then we use the randomising software (for example on Portal:Dogs) to mix them up. I can do all of this, it will take a bit of work, but we need consensus before we do all this because it is quite radical. Apterygial 23:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK? Chubbennaitor 16:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you know. Such as did you know... "WP:F1 is the leading authority on Formula One on Wikipedia?" Apterygial 23:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me! Cycling the DYKs manually often gets neglected.--Diniz(talk) 21:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's fine. Chubbennaitor 16:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am going to see if I can make a rule here which will give me a lot more work to do. All DYK hooks must be verifiable, and link to the specific article in which that fact is mentioned. This ensures that 1. we uphold fundamental Wikipedian values. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. ;) and 2. we advertise our articles, just like the main page DYKs. Apterygial 09:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In the news

I'm currently looking at Wikinews Importer Bot to see if we can get the news automated too. It seems a little complicated to set up, but if we can get our friends at Wikinews to do the work for us then there is no way we can lose. Apterygial 05:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, however a few queries; where will all the content come from, and is there any way we can moderate what goes in there to ensure it isn't full of gossip? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 16:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea to either of those questions, but I've seen a few portals that use the bot, and it seems to be quite successful. Apterygial 23:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to add the news by manual. Chubbennaitor 16:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If the bot can be used, then I'm all for it.--Diniz(talk) 21:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The news itself comes from Wikinews, here's a list of their articles. There's no real reason why we shouldn't tap into their hard work, and give them a space on our portal. Apterygial 23:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How? We'd need the most recent but it doesn't get updated enough and only has the Big Main headlines, not enough of the smaller ones. Chubbennaitor 16:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That colour scheme

I'm not sure about you, but I don't like the existing colours. We need a new vibrant scheme which will make people say "Wow! Those colours are awesome! I'm going to forget how boring that race in Valencia was and pay attention to F1 again!" Those of you who watched the race in question will know how hard this is going to be. So, what colours do people like? Apterygial 05:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally? Red and yellow. :P Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 16:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Black and red (border). Dull yellow as background. Chubbennaitor 16:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

{{{1}}}

Is this good? Chubbennaitor 16:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Header

The yellow looks worse than the grey IMO with red and black. What about this Renault pre-2007/Asturias inspired example? AlexJ (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not bad, actually. I always liked that colour scheme, and since it's the car on our symbol... I think this is something we'd have to vote on. Apterygial 23:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Header

What about the other way around, with a black title? Apterygial 11:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I prefer the current colour scheme to the alternatives proposed so far... :P --Diniz(talk) 21:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's dull. I think a mixture of both would be nice. Chubbennaitor 16:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to a colour I think looks OK, but I'm more than ready to revert if any serious objections are voiced. Apterygial 04:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's great. Could have discussed it though. Chubbennaitor 21:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I know :) Had my be bold cap on... Apterygial 22:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You normally do. Chubbennaitor 09:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What are we doing then

Have we decided on what we're doing. Chubbennaitor 09:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. I was on a Wikibreak for the last week, but now I can work on it. I'll start soon with the DYKs. Still confused by the lack of edit tabs, Apterygial 00:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Why have the edit symbols gone? What is the colour. I'll start making changes. Chubbennaitor 16:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The "Next event" section

I like this section, but I think the big circuit map leaves too big of a blank space. I'm thinking that we should go for pictures which exemplify what those GPs are about - so File:Monaco 680.JPG for Monaco, maybe File:Start 2008 Australian Grand Prix.jpg for Australia, File:Interlagos 2006 aerial.jpg (despite its size) for Brazil, and so on. Obviously we'd have a problem with Abu Dhabi, but we could just get a shot of the city...

Thoughts? Apterygial 22:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I set up this year's races anyway, which took quite a while... Apterygial 03:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks good, although I would prefer images of the circuit for each event: thus this one for the Nurburgring and this one or this one for Bahrain.--Diniz(talk) 10:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely the Nuerburgring one. Maybe the second Bahrain one, but we have to size it so it doesn't take up too much space. Apterygial 11:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Great idea! Chubbennaitor 21:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Grands Prix

Would anyone murder me if I removed the "Grands Prix" section? The portal is already getting a little long, and I'd like that spot for the DYKs. To me, it seems a little redundant: if we are listing Grands Prix why not constructors? Or drivers? The list of grands prix article link could be included in the "See also" section, if removed. Apterygial 12:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I'd move t below the selected article. Chubbennaitor 21:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

He just said he wanted to remove it... Yes, go ahead. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 22:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Gone. Apterygial 05:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

SA &TM'sSA

What's the difference between The Selected Article and This Months Selected Article? Is the selected article annual or replaced every half year? I've just realised that the last mass improvement of this place was in 2006. Why did it become inactive. Have we put ourselves back on the community portal. Chubbennaitor 09:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This month's selected article is changed every month. The selected article is changed every time you hit the purge button. I've actually gone through the edits of the user who posted that comment about removal from the community portal, and he didn't remove us from anything. Apterygial 22:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories section

Does the Categories section need to be the full width of the page? It results in a lot of whitespace (well, yellowspace actually) on the right-hand side of the page. Maybe the Categories and "Things you can do" sections could go side-by-side? DH85868993 (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look too bad on mine. You using a wide screen? Apterygial 01:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm using a standard aspect ratio screen, but admittedly a screen res of 1280 x 1024. DH85868993 (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Same here. Actually, I just changed my resolution down to see what it looked like, and when I changed back, there were only three columns. Should be four. Try purging your cache. Apterygial 02:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, they're in columns - I'm using IE6 (which doesn't support columns properly, and just lists them all in a single column - hence the yellowspace). Now I understand... DH85868993 (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Come to the dark side... Apterygial 02:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The space could be used up better. Chubbennaitor 20:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Updaters

The DYK's etc. that change every time it's purged. We've got many FA's etc. When are we going to rotate it to another set of 10. Chubbennaitor 21:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really understand what you're asking. Apterygial 00:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We have 10 different DYK's that change every purge. When are we going to change those 10. Chubbennaitor 21:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We're not. We'll just add more groups of four. Apterygial 23:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

To improve

I have been looking at some featured portals, and I think we can easily reach the goal of a featured portal.

I do, however, have a couple of suggestions, which I have picked up from aforementioned portals:

• One of the portals has a Related Wikimedia column. Perhaps we can implement this?
• The cricket portal has a list of featured content (which, I must say, is considerably larger than ours :D).
• The cricket portal also doesn't have a set colour for every section (that is, every section has a different colour). Perhaps we could do this?
• Many of the sports portals (e.g. the rugby union and cricket portals) has a small list on the top including many other sport portals. I don't know if this would be applicable to us, as both of the lists don't include F1.
• The RU portal also has a Featured Quote section. I'm sure if we build up our quote database on Wikiquote, this could be implemented.

Maybe these could be used to improve? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 12:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• OK
• We do to
• Not yet
• We do to. Look at the bottom
• We did this at the Newsletter. Didn't work

Chubbennaitor 15:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Good. :D
• Not on the portal, we don't.
• Why not?
• Not in the same way as the example portals
• Well, we can make it work then :P

Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 16:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Do it then
• Sarcasm. What do you mean by featured list?
• Too fast. Let it settle.
• We do. Ours is bigger.
• Find where we can get the quotes from. I tried. Chubbennaitor 21:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is a weird set-up for a conversation.

• The only other Wikimedia with a Formula One page are Wikinews and Commons. I didn't think it was worth adding that section while there are only two other projects to link to.
• The trouble with adding more boxes is that the portal is already quite long, remember I had to ask to remove the GP section...
• Not a big fan of different coloured sections. I kind of like the unified look.
• {{Sports portal browsebar}}. If you wanted to switch it for the current {{browsebar}}, I wouldn't complain.
• ...because space is an issue. If you can set up a quotes section (which must be referenced either here or at Wikiquote, which is the real problem in setting it up) then we can find room.

Apterygial 23:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Two proposals

In light of some comments in the PR, after a suggestion I made, I would like to merge Selected article and Selected race, which would give us greater numbers there, up to FPOC status. Secondly, I'm wondering if the This month's selected article section has run its course, and with the rotational system every article gets its place in the sun anyway, and the section is now just taking up space, in a confusing kind of way. Thoughts? Apterygial 23:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sound like sensible suggestions to me. --Diniz(talk) 00:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't complain. Chubbennaitor 16:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've carried out both of those activities (and more). I even had fun with speedies getting the old pages deleted. Apterygial 11:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice work

Haven't looked at the portal in a while - looks really nice! 4u1e (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. At least someone views Apterygials work with mine and Diniz and Cdhaptomos's guidance. Chubbennaitor 20:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Is no trouble. :) 4u1e (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:Denmark

Pardon me if this is a dumb question, but why is Wikiproject Denmark listed among related wikiprojects? ^LeaveSleaves 06:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Everyone in F1 is Danish. They just put on different accents and claim familiarity with certain countries to disguise that. As I don't think I can find what you would class as reliable sources to support that, I've removed the link from the wikiprojects section. Apterygial 07:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a joke, by the way. Apterysock 12:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A new idea

I was wondering how this would go down: how about we put in the selected articles bits why they are selected? e.g. for the Lewis Hamilton article, you would put something like "Selected as a Good Article" with the GA emblem there. Just a thought... Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 15:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Chubbennaitor 21:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Where would you put it? At the bottom of the box? I'm not sure though, every article is there because they are FA or GA, why create a two-tier system (Bernie, is that you?) Apterygial 01:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It may be obvious to us why they are selected, but it won't be to the regular reader. I'll conjure up something so you can see what I mean. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 20:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Something like this? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 20:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's quite good. Is there any way you could put the GA thing and the "Archive/Nominations" thing at the same level? Apterygial 00:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I could; all I did was create a separate table and change the aligning to left. However, I don't know enough markup to do that, so would you mind doing it? I'm sure it isn't that hard really...Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 10:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done it. I'm not entirely convinced it's necessary though, the portal should really just be displaying the best content, not comparing how good some of the best content is in comparison to the other stuff. I'm certainly not rejecting the idea out of hand, but I'm interested in your rationale. Apterygial 10:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. All I'm saying is that the average reader does and will not know why this particular article is important, or selected, because there is nothing signifying this there. That's why I came up with this.

I don't know whether it would also be useful to provide a link to the GAN/FAN page under the word 'selected'. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 10:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Just put into practice. Chubbennaitor 18:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)