Talk:Formula One/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Sports Infobox

So, how do we feel about Howard the Duck's sports infobox? I'm not averse to the idea, although I think the current layout is now a bit of a mess - could the picture and boxes at the top of the page be reorganised. It would also have been nice to have discussed the idea before changing an FA page. --4u1e 16:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There are some problems with it for sure, it looks quite ugly at the moment. Transparency on the logo seems not to be working, and generally I'm not sure it conveys anything any better than it was before. Alexj2002 22:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
If it's a new standard for sports pages I don't mind, but I couldn't find anything about it at a quick look! --4u1e 22:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
To make it clear, it is not a new standard for sports pages. However, everybody is encouraged to improve the current infobox (like the formatting and programming). It is optional and you can remove it if you like. I've tested several ways on how to make the page neater, but my programming skills (or lack thereof) can't do it. For me the problem seems to be on how to place the portal and related topics pane at the bottom of the infobox. --Howard the Duck 02:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I sort of fixed it already. Is it OK now? --Howard the Duck 03:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK Howard. Thanks for the explanation. What do people think? Is this adding to the article? --4u1e 06:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets say I don't know anything about F1, and I'm too lazy to read the entire text. Then I see the infobox which gives me the basic info: what sport it is, the date it is founded (for an FA, this article omits the foundation year), the number of teams, the country (in this case, worldwide) and the current champs. Then it gives me somewhat of an impression what F1 is. --Howard the Duck 09:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Television broadcaster table

I believe this information should be either removed altogether or converted into prose. Any thoughts? Mark83 12:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Move to a seperate page? I've no argument with having a section on TV, quite appropriate really, but I'm not sure what the table really adds to the topic of F1 itself. 4u1e
What it adds to the topic? Nothing IMHO. And available on satellite free-to-air? How is that more important than who does the commentary, the production company, broadcaster's website etc. etc. Mark83 18:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
TABLE CAPTION
Country TV Network Language Available SAT FTA
Austria ORF2 German ?
Switzerland SF2 German ?
Germany Premiere (PayTV) German (they do have commentators) ?


Namethatdriver.com

The link to Namethatdriver.com [1] should have been written in a better way, but how is it spam? Isn't it useful and interesting? andy29 20:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because it doesn't look very encyclopedic; Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a link directory. But if you want to re-add it (without the all-capital letters and at the bottom of the list rather than the top), I wouldn't mind. Wmahan. 20:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, done! andy29 00:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Nah I'm sorry but it may be interesting and a tiny bit useful in specific cases, but I count only 20 F1 drivers (+ or - a few testers) out of 791 in the history of the sport. The website is not about Formula One the sport – if it had at least all of the current drivers and no non-F1 drivers it might be useful for the list of Formula One drivers or 2006 Formula One season but it serves no purpose in this article. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 06:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Driver contracts

Who says that Alonso and Raikkonen are contracted until 2006-12-31? That's been added to their infoboxes. I think this is just an assumption. I don't think there's a standard contract dating template?? Mark83 00:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"During the early 2000s, Bernie Ecclestone's Formula One Administration created a number of trademarks, an official logo, and an official website for the sport in an attempt to give it a corporate identity"

By official logo I assume it means the 'Motion Blur' logo used in the infobox (not the old FIA logo). If that's the case it doesn't really make sense. It wasn't created during the early 2000's because it existed at least as far back as 1994 (Source:[2]) Any suggestions on what to do with the sentence? Alexj2002 20:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It might have been in existance, but was it a trademark? If not, then the statement is true. Manipe 20:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Mmm. That's really confused me. It was my understanding (obviously wrong) that the small FIA logo you can see (with the car superimposed) was the only one used in the 1990s. I didn't write the sentence but I'll try and find out more! Mark83 21:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
A little research with the UK patents office shows that the trademark was filed on 12 March 1994 [3] (that link only works between 8am-10pm UK time) Strangely it would appear that the FIA car logo was only trademarked the previous year (23 March 1993) - [4] (again same time restrictions). Now the reason for it's lack of widespread use during the early 90's might be down to the fact it would appear it was only trademarked for merchandise. In September 1997 [5] a whole new load of uses were added including "Arranging, organising and staging of sports events", "Radio and television broadcasting;", "computer games" and much more. Alexj2002 09:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to replace {{flagicon|USA...}} calls

Notice: There is currently a proposal to change calls {{flagicon|USA..}} to {{USA|..}} at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template#Changing_USA_flag_calls. Please consider posting there to keep the discussion in one place. (SEWilco 04:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

List of broadcasters

Would anyone object if I moved the list of broadcasters to a page of its own? The article is getting quite long now and the list is very long now and isn't the most relevant part of the article. I'll leave it for a week and do the move if I get no comments to the contrary. 4u1e 08:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable suggestion, what does everyone else think? A move to 'F1 broadcasters' would neaten the page considerably. Then again, a new page containing the element, with a history to F1 broadcasting may be more appropriate. F1Reader 16:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No comments in support - as for the previous mention of this idea. Moved list to List of Formula One broadcasters. 4u1e 07:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Forumula1.net as an External Link

I would like to throw this subject to the floor for consideration.

The site has been included within the external links section (by a number of different users) over the past year, and I feel there should be a final decision on whether or not it should have a place on the page.

For

The site is independent, not overly monetized by design (no pop-ups or intrusive banners), provides unique daily news and features, and supports an informed community.

Against

It's not the largest F1 site on the internet, nor is it well known. The site does not have a pictures contract.

I personally believe its independence and lack of commercial nature, offers something different and unique over the other external links, and probably deserves to be included. However, what are everyone elses thoughts on this? F1Reader 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe it's not already included. Like you say f1read, the site doesnt have any annoying ads popping up Like many others listed there, and it's articles are well written. Its one i've added to favourites. --81.153.228.84 12:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Senior Editor and Further Discussion Call

I find it outrageous that an attempt is made to endorse a website which adds little to the article. Forumula1 is primarily a blog / forum and you do not run your own news gathering agency. If you allow Forumula1 to be added, you have no justification of not adding other blogs / forums (that offer a little news too). This opens the floor for this article to become a directory more than informative resource.

For example for January 30, you have 3 news items. ITV-F1 reported more than 15 unique news items. It becomes apparent that news is not your specialization, but a forum / blog coupled with as menu disguised google ads.

I request a senior editor take a careful look at this and suggest exclusion. What should also be pointed out that in my SPAM clean-up, you did not defend any other site except Forumula1, despite these sites having more experience and more information. Many sites would like to be included in Wikipedia, but there are strict regulations that everybody needs to abide by. --62.135.93.206 12:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

When I saw the removal yesterday I disagreed with it. However given the explanation just given I think that user is correct. If we include this it opens a can of worms regarding forums/blogs etc. Mark83 10:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
First and foremost, I have no connection to the site, and have only acted to include the site within this section for the community to decide whether it is worthy of inclusion, something that I would personally support.
Secondly, having researched my argument (hint) you’ll be relieved to hear that the site does actually write its own news. The sub-editor I managed to contact this afternoon attended 13 Grand Prix last season, and has been writing in a journalistic capacity for sixteen years, with eight following motor sport. Had the anonymous user actually read and compared the articles offered by ITV and Forumula1.net, they’d have found the latter to offer inside information, insight and well written articles. ITV does provide more news on a day to day basis, but when one article is sufficient, why split it into four?
I believe that covers most of their unfounded drivel. I suppose we could discuss the fact that the site has a community (ie repeat visitors meaning a good user experience), a forum and advertising – shock horror! For their information, ITV-F1 has also recently introduced a forum and has far more obtrusive advertising.
I would like to see further constructive discussion regarding the sites inclusion. It is independent but I feel it is worthy of being one of the recommended external links. Until agreement can be reached, the link will remain outside of the external links.
Thanks. F1Reader 22:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of F1 sites which are just as well constructed and could be considered equally worthy of inclusion, but just like Formula1.net, linking to them adds very little (if anything) to the encyclopediac content of the Wiki Formula One page. However well-loved, well written or well-informed Formula1.net may be, Wiki is not a newspaper or a collection of links. I agree the ITV website often leaves a great deal to be desired, I would not justify the link to it on the basis of the material on the web-site, but rather on the fact that they offer the official TV coverage of F1 in the UK. Mighty Antar 23:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at MoS on flag icons

Please contribute to the discussion on flag icons at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry?. (SEWilco 14:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

References

I added some references in the Cars and technology section but I'm not really sure if I did it correctly. Also I couldn't find a reference for the 2.4 liter V8 engines making 250+ hp, although I don't believe the Toyota engine is the most powerful engine in the series. Anyone know where there might be a reference for the more powerful engines? IJB TA 05:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Future of Formula One

I notice this section opens with unreferenced comments about Michael Schumacher and Ferrari. While I accept this does reflect the perspective of some fans and probably the opinion of those who don't directly follow the sport, it certainly doesn't reflect the results of the Autosport magazine Survey held a few years ago which, if I remember correctly had an overwhelming response and put the introduction of compulsary fuel stops as the sports biggest failing. This article also avoids any mention of controversy or the significance of politics within F1, e.g. The 1984 Tyrrell incident, Ayrton Senna's ban in 1989 for dangerous driving, Fuel stops being banned originally on the basis that they were too dangerous and then reinstated when it was felt that the lack of on-track overtaking had started to make things rather boring. This seems to me a very positive promotional page for F1, but it is rather polite at the moment! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mighty Antar (talk • contribs) 02:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC). Sorry had a browser problem when I did my preview and forgot Mighty Antar 02:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've never been very keen on that section. The whole article is shamefully underreferenced. If you can find appropriate sources and write a nice neutral piece on the future of Formula One, go for it. I think politics is also a good section to add, but be very careful about picking your sources - there's a lot of gossipy stuff out there that would probably not be a useful addition. Enjoy! 4u1e 19:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

'One' or '1'?

It seems to me that this article incorrectly uses the word 'One' instead of the number '1' in the name 'Formula One'. As evident in the 'F1' logo, it is spelled with the number, and referance to their official site, they use the number and not the word, as well. Is this a common mistake or is there a specific reason that the word is exclusivley used?

Aelange 07:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

See discussion here. In summary, current usage is largely, but not exclusively, 'Formula One'. The FIA, the sport's governing body, normally use 'One'. 4u1e 22 February 2007 14:33

Ferrari dominance - 2001-2005

Should this be used as a heading seen as Ferrari were no way dominant in 2005?

Confusing to those who don't follow the sport closely I should think... Lradrama 19:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd split the history section into four sections, with a short prelude on pre-championship F1:
    • 1950-1958 The return of racing
After the war, the sport was dominated by the large European car manufacturers who had competed before the war. Cars are front engined. Fangio dominates the period.
    • 1959 - 1980 The 'Garagistes'
British specialist manufacturers come to dominate with mid-engined designs, using off the shelf engines - mainly the Cosworth DFV from 1966 to 1980. Ferrari also competitive.
    • 1981 - 2000 Formula One becomes big business
Turbos and Ground Effect start the FISA-FOCA war as manufacturers return, mainly as engine suppliers. F1 becomes a global money spinner. Senna and Prost dominate the first half of the period, Williams and Renault the second.
    • 2000 - present
Teams owned by large car manufacturers make up most of the field, Ferrari and Schumacher start the decade with an unprecedented period of dominance.
Three to four paragraphs only on each section, except the shorter last section which should be two at most. Constructive criticism always appreciated! ;-) 4u1e 00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


That's fine, a much better idea. Lradrama 12:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


As I predicted, people are changing it to 'Ferrari dominance 2000-2004' which is true, but there simply is nowhere for the 2005 seasont to go, unless we group all the 21st century years together, which would mean we have a huge section on our hands. Mmmmmm... Lradrama 09:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


MUCH BETTER!Lradrama 09:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and deleted or moved a large amount of material from the 2000-2006 section. There was much too much detail in there relating to the last few years, including more detail on individual races and seasons than the relevant articles. This is only a summary, there are many other articles which badly need the content. Happy to discuss. 4u1e 14 March 2007, 17:32

Incorrect statement?

"It is a massive television event, with millions of people watching each race in more than 200 countries."

Am I missing something, because as far as I'm concerned, there are only 193 countries in the world. It's impossible for there to be viewers in 200 countries. м info 04:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia there are 245. -- Ian Dalziel 05:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
But only 193 soverign states. I wonder if the people of Sealand enjot F1 racing? м info 23:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
What have sovereign states to do with watching motor racing on TV? Are you saying no-one in Scotland follows F1 racing? -- Ian Dalziel 08:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course, the real problem is that it's an unsourced statement. Find a source and reference it. If we need to explain differences in counting countries, but until then, I think the proper thing to do is to eliminate the reference to the number of countries. - Cafemusique 14:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's taking the narrowest possible view of what constitutes a country - states with unchallenged international recognition. So 193 excludes, for example, Taiwan, where there's no reason to think that people don't watch F1. (For that matter, what makes you think whoever's currently in residence in Sealand doesn't watch it? They can get Sky satellite if not terrestrial broadcasts from the UK.). However, despite all that, I do agree that the statement should be referenced, I just don't feel it's inherently unlikely. 4u1e 15:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ref'd. I suppose that still leaves the question of 'how many countries are there', which could disprove the reference used. Wikipedia, for what it's worth, seems to be saying that there are more than 193. 4u1e 15:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the reference used does state that there are 200 countries watching F1. It's a speculative article about what the author believes F1 will be like in 2010 (almost fifteen years after he wrote the article). In context, I believe this is his speculation about what that fifteen-years-away future F1 would be like, not a statement that it is presently broadcast to that many countries. - Cafemusique 15:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
(Fair point - that was careless of me. 4u1e 23:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC))
(Actually, not quite as sloppy as that suggests. The article says "With TV coverage going out [Present tense] to 200 countries around the world, there is the potential for each advertising hoarding to be sold to 200 different sponsors". Seems to be that the author is saying that it goes to 200 countries now, which means that with future technology the potential is etc etc. Still not a good reference because 'now' is 1996. 4u1e 23:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

Do a search on google for "f1 broadcast 200 countries", there are many articles stating this is the case, inc. this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/1842217.stm Davesmith33 16:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've modified again, becuase if we want to get really picky, that was the situation in 2001. The problem here of course is that the 200 countries figure will be coming from the promotional team at whichever company owned the rights at the time, and that the media are not usually very careful about checking these things for accuracy. 4u1e 23:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Moved ref to body of article as there is a whole subsection on television. Lead should only be a summary of article body anyway, so repeat references not required (This is a style thing, not an attempt to hide it!) Happy to discuss. 4u1e 23:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Drivers and Constructors

I've been wondering about the 'Drivers and Constructors' section for a long time. It's an odd mix of information, and I've never been able to understand why you would lump the two together like that. I've just had a look at the version of this article which was first suggested for FA (back in June 2004), and all became clear: It was originally a list of the 2004 drivers and constructors! Now I understand how far from its original purpose it has drifted, I feel happier about re-structuring it. The most obvious solution is to have 'Drivers' (facts about drivers) and 'Constructors' (about constructors). Anybody got a better suggestion? Cheers. 4u1e 15 March 2007, 16:36

McLaren-Mercedes links

As far as I can tell in all instance of McLaren-Mercedes, the Mercedes part of this name links to the standard Mercedes article. However surely it should be Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines (currently a redirect to Mercedes-Ilmor)? Mark83 22:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We had a discussion about what F1-related instances of "Mercedes" should be linked to, but I don't think it actually reached a firm conclusion. Perhaps it's time to revive that discussion. -- DH85868993 01:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure about Mercedes in general, but in the McLaren-Mercedes context I believe the Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines/Mercedes-Ilmor is the correct link? Mark83 11:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Circuits?

Hey boys, still kind of new so I don't know the proper format for how to do talk pages and such, but irregardless I've removed the following from the "Circuits" section of the article, because it's pretty bad grammar and isn't cited... perhaps someone can readd it with the proper changes? Here's what I removed: "The newest F1 circuit came in 2005 which was in Istanbul, Turkey. The next known circuit that is coming out is Abu Dhabi in 2009" Punctuation left as is.Riskbreaker927 03:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

New Sentence/Section

The newest of the F1 circuits that has come into the F1 calender was the introduction of the Istanbul track (Designed by Herman Tilke)in 2005. The track features 14 turns (left:8) (right:6)- that includes the exciting "Turn 8". There has been talk of a new track in France to take over from the current Grand Prix track as early as 2008 and also a new confirmed "Street Circuit" in Spain next year.

~ Sounds slightly better but still can be improved.

McLaren_Rules 12:11, 5 June- 2007 (UTC)

Alonso / Schumacher first picture

Why has the opening picture been changed from Alonso to Schumacher?

Well, it was done by an editor called Schumacherfan, so I guess that may have something to do with it :D. I guess you can argue it either way, Schumacher is the most successful driver in the history of the sport, and Ferrari the most successful team, so that picture is relevant. On the other hand, Alonso and Renault are the reigning champions, although they're no longer together, so perhaps the Schumi pic is best. I don't feel strongly either way, to be honest. 4u1e 18:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

But the same picture and text is shown further down the page. Davesmith33 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

So it is - I've put Alonso back, then. I assume Schumacherfan got carried away in his enthusiasm. Cheers. 4u1e 13:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The most successfull driver in F1 is contested though. It could be different drivers from different eras such as Senna, Fangio etc. So maybe a nice collage of all three would be nice 8-) McLaren_Rules,12:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Most successful, by one definition at least, is probably not disputed - Schumacher won more races and titles than any other driver (Although his percentages are lower than Fangio's). A collage doesn't really solve the problem - Why Senna and not Prost? Prost won more races and titles than Senna (and more fastest laps, iirc). Why not Clark? Or Stewart? As keen as I am on representing the history of the sport, I think a reasonably current pic is probably the best choice for the header for the article. I'm not overly fussed which one it is, though. 4u1e 12:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Feeder Series

As I'm quite new to Formula One, I thought something that could be added to this article are the feeder series. Even if it is just listing the links to them at the bottom of the page, I think it will help newbies (like myself) learn more about Formula One and how drivers work their way to the top. 209.247.22.209 19:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll take a look at it. mattbuck 19:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that to everyone's attention. I'm sure it will be followed up. Lradrama 19:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I added in a fairly brief section about feeders and post-F1. I'm sure others will join me. mattbuck 19:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the latter part of this section which discusses alternate paths to F1, 'Michael Schumacher raced in sports cars', which is just a tad misleading. He competed in the WSPC for around a year, but before that took fairly standard paths (F3 etc) and even briefly raced in the Japanese F3000 series. To say he got into F1 via sports cars is simply not very accurate IMO. Thoughts? Tomjol 23:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's better to say that 'following a spell in sportscar racing, Schumacher graduated to F1.' or something like that? Lradrama 08:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've read the section and decided to write it like this - '...sports cars (albeit after climbing through the junior single-seater ranks).'
What do people think about that? It seems to be addressing the issues stated just above. Please comment if you feel improvements can be made further. Lradrama 08:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Better. Personally I'd probably word it more as 'Michael Schumacher, having climbed through the junior single-seater ranks, spent a year racing sports cars' but that's no more than personal taste. Either way, much better. Tomjol 12:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's misleading to say that he got into F1 from sportscars. Most of Schumacher's biogs make quite a big thing of the benefits he got from racing in sports cars: Backing from Mercedes (who paid for his F1 debut race with Jordan), experience in powerful cars (He claimed at the time that his ability to continue at racing speed with only fifth gear in Spain 94 was down to his sportscar experience) and with pitstops, and experience with a major manufacturer, including the PR angle, which was not such a big thing in the junior leagues at the time. He raced in sportscars over about 18 months. He only raced in one Japanese F3000 race, by the way.

Prize?

what do they race for other than to be first? i can't find anywhere that mentions what the prize is for winning, if there even is one. much thanks. Sahuagin 02:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is some prize money that goes to the teams. See Formula One Management. However, you also have to keep in mind that the commercial value to sponsors of winning drivers and teams far outweighs that of losing drivers and teams, and those financial rewards probably far outweigh the prize money handed out by Bernie.--Robert Merkel 05:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Robert Merkel is correct, there is prize money awarded. However, the amounts are kept confidential.Mustang6172 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Related discussion here btw.
I know it's confidential, however F1 Racing manages to make estimates about team budgets/advertising income etc. - and both of those figures are non-public as well. I'm suprised that nobody has ever 'ballparked' the prize money. Do we even know the structure? i.e. Do teams only get prize money according to final place in WCC? Do teams get paid for results, i.e. x times 10 for a win, x times 8 for 2nd.. etc. etc.? I can't believe that these ratios aren't even public knowledge. Robert makes an excellent point about sponsorship being more important. Catch 22 - back of the grid teams will value the prize money more than say McLaren, however they also don't have the chance of luring Vodafone as title sponsor!
A major issue regarding renewal of the Concorde Agreement has been commercial revenue. Teams want/wanted a much bigger slice of F1 revenues - i.e. track side advertising, race fees, TV rights revenues etc. I think I read that they have won this and to continue Robert's point, these revenues probably make prize money look even less important.
As for 'why race than other to be first'?? That confused me -- it's a sport. Human nature makes people want to win. You'll find few members of a GP team that don't want their drivers to finish 1st and 2nd. If they can't manage that they'll take 2nd and 3rd. If they can't manage that they'll take 3rd and 4th... etc. etc.
I don't think prize money is anything like such a big deal in F1 as it is in the States. The very top drivers receive huge retainers from their teams and from sponsorship (reputedly up to $100M annually for Schumacher). Any race prize money is likely insignificant by comparison. 4u1e 17:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't all this be mentioned in the article? For someone unfamiliar with the sport, or racing bodies in general, there's no indication of any of this. 154.20.185.255 (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think another reason for the lack of prize money is to prevent what has happened in other racing organizations like NASCAR. Prize money varies race to race, and some drivers will opt out of races with a small purse. These same races are not seen as important as the big money races. The Indianapolis 500 is another good example. IRL teams with small budgets will make a point of racing in the 500 for the prize money that could (if they win) pay for them to race the rest of the year. The F1 system of having very little focus on prize money makes the focus instead on the entire season. No one race is more important than another, so winning the season is everything.67.105.21.234 (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cars and Technology

A few questions, which might or might not be able to be worked into the article. Are there any major differences between F-1 engines, and the engines used in America in the Indy racing circuit? Also: One of the design configurations of an F-1 engine seems to be the use of Valve springs. Are these Valve springs used as substitutes for overhead cams, or pushrods? Is the F-1 valve-spring design ever used in regular street-legal car engines? Marc S., dania fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The basic differences are the Indycar engine is a 2.2 litre turbocharged V6 making at best 700 horse with Formula One running a 2.4 litre V8 making about 740 horse. F1 is rev-limited at 18,000 (refer Formula One engines). Off the top of my head the Indycar engine has a much lower rev-limit, a turbo of course could produce major higher power, the 1.5 litre F1 turbos of the 1980s were producing engines of upwards of 1100 horse in qualifying trim. Famously the BMW engine of that period was based on a standard production block.
I'm not sure there is a lot of value of comparing F1 engines to Indycar engines in the article, or in the F1 engines article, which would be a much better place for it anyway. Indycar has only just had a major change of engine design with F1 due to change in 2014. Indycar engine is very controlled in it specification, everyone uses the same turbocharger. Vastly cheaper in specification designed for a largely domestic racing series with a limited reach of advertising revenues, Formula One has a vastly larger economy of scale. --Falcadore (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Other Media

Controversy about the Sky / BBC deal could be added? At the time, it was very popular in the news about Formula 1 becoming a "Pay TV" programme due to the BBC only being able to broadcast half. It may also be quite significant in terms of the popularity of the sport. Just a thought - Predspread (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Not very import in the history of Formula One is it? Didn't affect the outcome of any races did it? --Falcadore (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but it was the first time that every race in the calendar wasn't available for non-Pay TV viewers. Predspread (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The Formula

Given that the lead makes it clear that formula 1 is essentially a set of standards to do with the cars and conditions of the races that run under that name I find it odd that these rules aren't actually laid out in the article. It seems to me that It would be useful to lay out at least the basic rules somewhere near the top of the article or at least provide a link in the lead to a full set of the specifications of formula 1 (if such a thing exists and is accessible). 110.33.144.12 (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added a link in the lead to the Formula One regulations page, which covers the basics. If you want the full rules, the regulations are accessible through the links at the bottom of the page. Thanks. QueenCake (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

'DRS' drag reduction system

The 'DRS' drag reduction system needs to be covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.204.151 (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

In what way do you mean? Nothing has really changed for this season. Britmax (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Drag reduction system has its own article. --138.130.128.28 (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Cronology of Formula One teams present in the 2013 season

I propose to add this table. This information appears in the article of F1 of spanish, and some users has asked for information like this. What do you think?


1950 Years 1960 Years 1970 Years 1980 Years 1990 Years 2000 Years 2010 Years
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
Ferrari (1950–)
McLaren (1966–)
Tyrrell (1970–1998) BAR (1999–2005) Honda (2006–2008) Brawn (2009) Mercedes (2010-)
Williams (1977–)
Toleman (1981–1985) Benetton (1986–2001) Renault (2002–2011) Lotus (2012-)
Minardi (1985–2005) Toro Rosso (2006–)
Jordan (1991–2005) Midland (2006) Spyker (2007) Force India (2008–)
Sauber (1993–2005) BMW (2006–2009) Sauber (2010-)
Stewart (1997–1999) Jaguar (2000–2004) Red Bull (2005–)
Lotus Racing (2010) Team Lotus (2011) Caterham (2012-)
Virgin (2010-2011) Marussia (2012-)
† The reason that Renault, Honda y Mercedes-Benz competed before and did not appear on this list is because they were not Toleman and Tyrrell predecessors respectively. Unlike the case of Sauber, which it was. Team Lotus also participated previously in Formula One between 1958 and 1994, and BMW did the same in 1952 and 1953.

In the late 2000s, following the 2008 economic crisis, the withdrawal occurs several Formula One teams like Super Aguri, Honda, BMW and Toyota.[1][2]

  • In 2012 the Spanish team HRT failed to raise the money to pay the FIA to participate in 2013 Season.
It needs to be cleaned up a bit (grammar, etc), but I like it. Very informative. ColinClark (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! It happens that i´m uruguayan, so i speak a native spanish and a basic english. If you want, you can put how it should be explained in each point with a better use of grammar. Greetings.--Fmln93 (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
It is necesary to considerer this case:

115.166.61.210 posted this comment on 28 October 2012 (view all feedback).

I was looking for a historical list of team owners.

Considering this request, and that almost three users agree on the use of this table, I propose to add it when (at least) has not grammatical errors. Greetings.--Fmln93 (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
It has the same problems when it was deleted two years ago. It is a hideous mass of colour, colour which is unexplained by by the lack of pictures of race cars related to the chart. Charts like this should have an emphasis on neutral high-contrast colour schemes, remembering that the audience for people who read wikipedia are people who know little about Formula One, especially what colours the cars are. Also these sort of colour schemes created visibility problems for the partially blind and the colour-blind.
Secondly the are numerous inaccuracies. Firstly, Tyrrell first entered Formula One in 1968 utilising Matras and first entered a Grand Prix at the 1966 German Grand Prix with a Formula 2 Matra. BMW was always refered to as BMW Sauber, not BMW. Also BMW did not enter Formula one in 1952 and 1953, but rather privateers who owned cars built by BMW. Toyota, Ligier and Prost are not on the chart anywhere so why are they mentioned at all? The various Lotuses are connected by name only which is incorrectly explained. Renault, Honda, Mercedes-Benz and BMW (inaccurately) have two teams explained but the two Williams teams are not mentioned. Minardi/Toro Rosso bar makes no mention of the 1994 merger with BMW Scuderia Italia.
Thirdly, there is no mention of how this chart has overcome the problems which saw it deleted three years ago. --124.179.98.190 (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Fourthly this chart in no way explains team ownership just how the teams have changed hands. A historical list of team owners whould list people like Bernie Ecclestone, Enzo Ferrari, Dietrich Mietsisch, Frank Williams, Jack Brabham, Max Mosely, Ron Dennis, Andrea Lucchinni, Giancarlo Minardi, Robin Herd, Bruce McLaren, Colin Chapman, Ken Tyrrell etc
Fifthly, perhaps this has been addressed previously by Category:Formula One team owners. --124.179.98.190 (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point of view but I think some points of your explanation are weak. For example, the colour of the background of each line it is based on the colour of the last car of each team (I did it by doing a capture of the colour of last car). Secondly, I not seem necesary specify the team owners, because it is not included in the name of this section and it was not requested by the user (he/she asked for teams specifically, not owners). Another point is that this table only shows the evolution of the present constructors, so not pretend to clarify more things. I agree with you in that it is more necesary to have a table which shows all teams (I am working in it), but as I said above, is not the principal objetive of this one. I understand too if you want to eliminate the information, I agree that it is not necesary. Greetings.--Fmln93 (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean weak? Wikipedia has a policy on the subject. WP:Color. It does not matter what colour the last car the team used was, the principal applies in all cases. Respect the visually impaired and use basic high-constrast colours only. Besides, how does anyone know it is the colour of the last car they raced, there aren't any pictures.
When you use a readers comment stating: I was looking for a historical list of team owners then it very much brings up the point of team owners. You a using that request to justify a table which does not answer the readers question, which was about team owners.
This chart should not be even remotely considered until the mistakes are fixed at least. --124.179.98.190 (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a pretty selective list. Where are Yeoman Credit, BRM, ERA, HWM, Walter Wolf, Frank Williams Racing, Lola, Tyrrell, Surtees, Honda, & Scuderia Milano (just off the top of my head)? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
At a guess, none related to current teams. Although, Tyrrell is there. 124.179.98.190 (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
But surely Tyrrell did not "become" BAR? I thought the latter bought their F1 place and nothing else. Britmax (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. Different location, different personnel. If Tyrrell became anything, it was the Harvey Postlethwaite Honda team which never raced (which wasn't related to BAR). -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
"At a guess, none related to current teams." Quite right, & my mistake. Which makes me ask another: why do we want (alone need) this for only the latest season(s)? If it's going to be done at all, it should be standard. If it's to be standard, I'd oppose it as trivial (& ugly); indeed, I'd oppose on those grounds anyhow. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
On the BAR article it clearly states that British American Tobacco sort-of brought out Tyrrell, so in my opinion Tyrrell should be on that table. However, I do not think the table is suitable for the article (apologies to the creator for the time he spent on it), and under my interpretation of the feedback (the same as 124.179.98.190) it doesn't answer the question. I think a small bit of detail on the formation/entry of the current teams as some text would be a good idea; I can imagine that quite a few people looking at the article would be looking at the article for that kind of information. —Gyaro–Maguus— 20:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The season page mentions all the teams/entrants, & they're linked. What more do you need? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Roman numerals

Do roman numerals always appear in the official titles of races? I often cannot find a citation in the majority of cases. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Was once commonplace, now is a dated practice. Something which has faded overtime. --Falcadore (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Race Edits

Please STOP removing the information about the Race Edits.
This information is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesleyBranton (talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because it's true doesn't mean that it's notable. What songs are included on an internet video has no baring on the sport whatsoever. JohnMcButts (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Women in F1 racing?

I'd appreciate it if somebody knowledgeable would add something about which presence, if any, women have in F1 racing (or why not). There's List of female Formula One drivers, but it gives little context and doesn't seem to be linked.  Sandstein  21:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"Famously described..."

I've reverted this, as the term is highly F1-centric, and is unlikely to have any recognition outside of the F1 world. Coupled with the fact that although sourced, the source is itself a motorsport magazine and not a mainstream publication and you don't have a "famous" quote.

The issue here is to recognise what is famous within a clique, and what is famous throughout the rest of the world. A quote - such as this - may be famous within motorsport, but that does not make it famous elsewhere, which is what the Wiki is directed at. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Champions in infobox

Who should be listed as Constructors' Champion in the infobox between now and the end of the season? My understanding is that Red Bull are still considered as the reigning Champions until the end of the season (as opposed to Mercedes, who are the 2014 Champions-elect). If that's correct, then I think Red Bull should be listed as Champions until the end of the season. Another option would be to list both teams, e.g. "2013: Red Bull, 2014: Mercedes". Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I would say to keep the reigning champions in place until the end of the season, but practically it might be a lost cause to endlessly revert the changes. QueenCake (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I've put Red Bull back and added an edit note. Let's see who can read. Britmax (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I have to go to work now but can someone confirm that the championships are handed over officially at a dinner when the season has ended? Britmax (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
This webpage (admittedly only a blog) states that Sebastian Vettel did not officially become (2013) World Champion until December (2013). I'll keep looking for something more official. DH85868993 (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Millions of pounds?

With annual spending totalling billions of pounds...

It was my understanding that all expenditures (penalty fees, entry/participation fees etc.) in F1 were measured in either dollars or euros. Why this random inclusion of pounds in the opening when there is no other mention of the currency anywhere else in the article (and one mention of dollars in the whole article)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.147.223 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If there is no objection, maybe the sentence can be changed from pounds to indicate lots of money in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.175.155.10 (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Future section revisited

Back in 2010 I opened a discussion on this talk page about the fact that we had a section on this article concerning the future, but it was filled with details from the past. This was particularly weird at the time because there was a whole 'future of Formula One' article that had existed earlier in the year, but it had been deleted.

At the time of the discussion, it was suggested that the first paragraph in the future section could "probably go". As it is, the paragraph hasn't changed as much as it could have done since then. This means that I still feel that the future section deals with the past a bit too much.

Yesterday I was pleased to see that there was an effort to remedy some of this. However, could more be done? RedvBlue 23:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

While I admit it definitely refers to things in the past, those things are talking about potential future events. On that note, I'll also admit that it doesn't really refer to any definite happenings, but those notable enough for inclusion in the section are few and far between. Are there any particular sentences you feel could do with a review? —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I do like the idea of the first paragraph putting the rest of the section in context of how rule changes have come about, but I still think that it refers too overtly to the past. It should be looking at how things can happen in the future. For example, one sentence begins: "To this end the FIA have instituted a number of rule changes, including…". That doesn't seem to have much relevance to the future. I might say that the last sentence in the first paragraph is relevant, but I'm not as sure as I used to be. It was the case, maybe about three and a half years ago (bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/13878359), that all the talk about the future was about the sport going green. Now that we've seen the new engines, I don't think that that is so relevant anymore. Instead the talk is more about the costs, and the survival of the smaller teams. Also, I'm not sure that the section's picture is relevant anymore. RedvBlue 00:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I actually think that the second sentence (the one you quoted) could be altered to be written in the present tense. All things mentioned are still be changed at the current time, so past tense is not entirely accurate. Otherwise, I completely agree with you. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi RedvBlue, I was the one that went over the section. So far, all I've done is remove the large amount of outdated information (as you said, there was a lot of things that concerned the past), and get rid of the speculative stuff that in many cases was sheer nonsense. As for what remains, yeah that first paragraph does need to be replaced, probably with something about the current proposals for managing the exorbitant costs - which, it must be said, has been the focus for about a decade or more. I've slowly been going over this article, so if no one else addresses it I'll eventually get round to changing it.
Just to add though, I am rather sceptical of "future" sections in articles altogether, as they are often a magnet for rapidly outdated and unreliable information, unless someone is constantly editing it. QueenCake (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I agree that it might be worth pointing out which areas are most susceptible to future rule changes given past precedent (for example, each season that goes by, there are always at least some minor rule changes affecting aerodynamics), although I'm not sure how much this would amount to speculation.
I also agree about being unsure regarding "future" sections. In fact, the only reason that I pointed it out on this article back in 2010 was because there used to be that whole 'future of Formula One' article that existed. It was actually a fairly large article if I remember correctly. Anyway, after its deletion, I just wanted to see what changes had been made to the future section of this article, and I've just found it annoying that that picture has been there ever since (although, bizarrely, it could be coming back into relevance with regards to the virtual safety car). RedvBlue 00:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 11 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


Formula One → Formula 1 – Official website is formula1.com, not formulaone.com Unreal7 (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment that's not much of an argument. Websites frequently have odd spellings. Do you have proof one form is more prevalent than the other form? (ie. actual usage by sports reporters for instance) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The official title of the series is the FIA Formula One World Championship, and the rules for the cars that compete in the World Championship and elsewhere is Formula One. The359 (Talk) 04:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 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" Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the reasons given above. The official title is Formula One World Championship (as above) not F1 which is a convenient shorthand and/or colloquialism. Eagleash (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Unreal7, did you check to see if www.formulaone.com was a redirect, or belonged to another business and was therefore unable to be used, before posting this move request? --Falcadore (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Response It does belong to another business. Tvx1 20:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Response I know that. I wanted to check if Unreal7 had done the basic research to see if their idea had any merit. --Falcadore (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

missing information

  • virtual safety car
  • DRS

--Johnny Bin (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Formula One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. (except the 4th, 5th and 6th ones, which I reverted. DH85868993 (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC))

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Score Double Points?

I think we should change the wording on the F1 pages as a whole from "team scored double points" to "teams score Double Points" to reflect that the race has not happened yet and therefore would be confusing.‎— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.108.198 (talk • contribs) 30 May 2014 18:52

It only happened once. Ian Dalziel (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
When the IP editor wrote "the F1 pages as a whole" I believe they actually meant the results tables in the 2014 team, driver and car articles, which at the time (30 May 2014) contained a footnote stating that teams and drivers scored points at the 2014 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. Of course, at that point in time, the race was still in the future, so use of the word "scored" in the footnote was questionable. The footnotes have since been removed, so I believe the issue is now resolved. DH85868993 (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Formula One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. (and they're still broken)

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The above archive URLs don't work (well, for me at least). I reverted them yesterday and added the {{cbignore}} per the instructions, but the bot made the same changes again today. I have raised the matter with the bot's operator. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The second one seems to work just fine once it redirects.—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems to redirect to a site homepage rather than to a specific page which supports the statement. I'll look for a different reference. DH85868993 (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I've replaced both the above (dead) URLs with alternatives. DH85868993 (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Formula One/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 19:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Will have a look. MWright96 (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that I will have to quick fail this nomination, as the article is qualified under the relevant criteria at Wikipedia:GA?. In this case of this particular article, I noted several problems which stand in its way of achieving GA status at this time. Also, the nominator has contributed to the article only once, and the entry has been through periods of edit warring over content in the past.

With a quick glance, the article needs an complete overhaul. The primary issue is that the entry is under-referenced. Despite having 142 citations and some book sources in the further reading section, there are several entire paragraphs which are unreferenced, and there is one banner in the media coverage section. There are also multiple citation needed tags and at least one original research tag. It also will need prose cleanup to make easier to read for people who have no knowledge of the field and some it has non-neutral wording. Once they have been significant work put into the article, it can be brought back to GAN. However, users should not nominate an article if they have not made a significant contribution towards improving it. MWright96 (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? On the multiple facets of Formula 1, the viewpoints deliver information that is well rounded and describes the history, and current events of Formula 1. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? The links work properly on the citations that were tested. Any paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article was discovered and mentioned in the corrections.

Sawsorre (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)SS Hj945

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Formula One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Formula One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Formula One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Usual championship handover problems

Can the project check when the championship is handed over and see that it is not changed prematurely please. Britmax (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

File:F1 logo.svg

Is this {{PD-textlogo}} ? If so, it should be moved to Wikimedia Commons. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Formula One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Formula One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 9 December 2018

These moves are discussed at WT:F1, not here.
The following discussion has been closed by Tvx1. Please do not modify it.

It has been proposed to replace "Formula One" with "Formula 1" in the title of articles containing the words "Formula One" (except for cases where the article title is the formal name of an organisation, e.g. Formula One Group). See above for examples. Interested editors are invited to participate in the existing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#"Formula_One"_or_"Formula_1". DH85868993 (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add any comments to the centralised discussion, not here. DH85868993 (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Media coverage update

The media coverage section needs updating. Channel 4 (the UK free-to-air broadcaster) has lost the rights to show any (except the British GP) races live, has to reduce the amount of racing shown in highlights programmes, is "forbidden" to hold interviews in the paddock or pit lane, or hold a grid walk. This news item gives more details. And if it behaves itself (I paraphrase) C4 may have the same "privileges" next year. I am too cross to edit the article myself, as if it would make any difference to the power-plays that are going on. Lewis Hamilton considers the development "definitely not cool". And the CEO of F1 is on the board of Sky. Say no more... Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Driver of the Day

So far, it's been hard to find anything about the Driver of the Day elections on Wikipedia. On my sandbox page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LRataplan/sandbox) I've set up a short intro and some stats. Is this the article to add that info to, suggestions about other articles that might fit the info better, own page, trash can? Your opinions are welcomed 'cause I have no idea :-) LRataplan (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@LRataplan:, I am not opposed to including the driver of the day. If it fits the notabillity criteria then I see no reason why it shouldn't be included. But I should warn I did bring this up last year as well but it was dismissed as being irrelevant and based on this editor's history he won't go down without a fight. SSSB (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@SSSB:, thanks, I've been through both the pages you listed and WP:NOT. I'd say the previous discussion and this means the subject 'attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time' here, and finding reliable sources is not an issue. Especially the website malfunction that lead to Kubica's seeming election drew a lot of attention, both on Twitter and in gatekept news media, and I found it strange none of this was mentioned on Wikipedia. Perhaps more to the point: the F1 article states that "high profile and popularity have created a major merchandising environment" and Liberty Media would certainly be susceptible to fan opinion. It would be original research to state that Verstappen's popularity is going to make it increasingly difficult to penalize the guy, but with all the changes Liberty Media is making to the F1 to attract more fans, this poll - or rather, an overview of years' worth of results - might help explain some of the FIA choices. The fact that car crazy Germany lost both of its F1 races because of bad ticket sales while Verstappen is about to get his third 'home' grand prix (NET, after AUT and BEL) is (sourcable) testament to that: popularity makes the sport go round. A popularity contest on this scale and the steady accrual of data over the last few years should in my opinion be considered notable. But I'm happy for anyone to try and convince me otherwise :-) LRataplan (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
"based on this editor's history he won't go down without a fight"
Well, you cannot say that you were not warned ...
"Especially the website malfunction that lead to Kubica's seeming election drew a lot of attention, both on Twitter and in gatekept news media, and I found it strange none of this was mentioned on Wikipedia."
I saw one story on Autosport. That was it. I didn't even know that it had happened until I saw the story. Granted, I live on the opposite side of the world and we don't get much media coverage to begin with, but I would hardly call a Twitter furore significant enough to be notable. The internet losing its mind over something would be so much more impressive if it didn't happen twice a day.
"A popularity contest on this scale and the steady accrual of data over the last few years should in my opinion be considered notable."
How has "Driver of the Day" affected the sport in any meaningful way? I cannot see any difference compared to how it was run before the poll was introduced.
I'd say the standard you're up against in Formula E and FanBoost. FE employs a voting method and the results directly affect the sport in some way. "Driver of the Day" doesn't have that tangiblity to it. And how do you compare the data from race to race in a meaningful way? Austria was good, but France was deathly boring. All you would be doing is providing a purely subjective assessment of who has the most fans, which is a) only tangential to a driver's performance and b) beaten by every other quantitative measure as an indicator of performance.
Outside a mention in the Formula One article that "Driver of the Day" exists, I don't see any benefit to introducing this to articles. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
As far as notability is concerned, if Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-motor-f1-austria-idUSKCN1TX1W2), the New York Times and the Daily Mail run a story, I'd say it's a story. There's literally hundreds of publications (amongst which, unsurprisingly, every Dutch site that acknowledges the existence of the wheel) that featured news or blog stories about this. Regular mentions of DotD elections in mainstream media (amongst which Twitter accounts, e.g. Ziggo Sports (biggest Dutch sports tv channel) only add to the notion that literally millions of people know about this phenomenon, and a serious number is participating, too. In terms of media presence, this DotD thing is out there in plain view. With all due respect, the fact that you only read once about it, suggests to me you should read more about F1. I'm honestly not trying for a personal attack here, I'm saying that if you follow F1, it's hard to miss DotD being a part of the F1 experience. Let's not kid ourselves: DotD is most literally notable, even if the Kubica story isn't, not so much. A Wikipedia story about a glitch would require something more consequential, I think, but the fact it garnered the attention that it did, at least says something about the (perceived) popularity of the DotD election per se.
So what it seems to boil down to, is whether or not DotD is a legit part of the sport, whether it is 'important' or 'meaningful' or 'tangible'. I move that influencing F1 race outcomes is not necessary for this to be relevant - only the fact that it is notable is. Why should we not feature some info about this? Is it because DotD elections don't burn fuel? And why are there articles on music on Wikipedia? Surely, music is no more than a trigger for a serotonin high, making people that are aware of certain tunes happy. Music rarely discretely changes the lives of those not involved in the production of it, and the same can be said about the DotD election. Participants enjoy participating, and that's pretty much the end of it. You wouldn't have to approve of the institution to feature it here, surely we agree on that.
Lastly, I don't think you addressed the point that popularity is a valid motivator for the FIA and even more so for Liberty Media. They need to sell tickets and broadcast slots, and knowing how their fans sway is important. Me, I think it's a case of free political research. Indeed it does not directly benefit the viewers (except in terms of their perceived well-being) or the racers, but I'm pretty sure the figures are noted by the powers that be. Ask yourself: why run this election in the first place? Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure that Ferrari likes the many Vettel wins with respect to the additional funding they get just for participating, and yes, Verstappen has a serious, active bunch of fans as well, who seem to appreciate his less than gentlemanly approach to overtaking. Meanwhile, Lewis Hamilton is seriously popular and the reigning five time champion, yet he has won only 10% of these 'popular votes', and Nico Rosberg only won once in his world champion season. Meanwhile Verstappen and Vettel racked up half the elections between them. Having that raw data might give Wikipedia readers a tool to help them understand the strategy of the sport's organisers. It might not. I don't presume to understand the audience, much less dictate what their bubble should look like, I just want to keep them informed.
The thing I'd be worried about, is where to put the statistics. The Formula One main page here doesn't warrant too much detail, but splitting up the data in, say, a per season table on the relevant seasonal articles, takes away from the analytical use one might seek for it. I just can't think of another place. A textual summary without access to the data is hard on the upkeep, unless one could find a simple table listing the results and providing an easy overview. Now where would you go on the internet to find one... LRataplan (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
"Why should we not feature some info about this?"
Because you're assuming that something is notable by virtue of having happened.
"if Reuters, the New York Times and the Daily Mail run a story, I'd say it's a story"
The Daily Mail is pretty much the reason why WP:RS exists. That you think it's a legitimate source at all is concerning.
"Having that raw data might give Wikipedia readers a tool to help them understand the strategy of the sport's organisers."
Traditional sources are a more appropriate and more effective way of expressing that.
"Indeed it does not directly benefit the viewers (except in terms of their perceived well-being) or the racers, but I'm pretty sure the figures are noted by the powers that be."
Ticket sales and broadcast figures are far more accurate, far more reliable and far more comprehensive ways of measuring the sport's success.
"I don't think you addressed the point that popularity is a valid motivator for the FIA and even more so for Liberty Media."
You have data. What you don't have is information. Data on its own is meaningless; data in context is information. Can you demonstrate that Liberty and/or the FIA have changed any aspect of the sport as a direct result of DotD results?
"Having that raw data might give Wikipedia readers a tool to help them understand the strategy of the sport's organisers. It might not. I don't presume to understand the audience, much less dictate what their bubble should look like, I just want to keep them informed."
That sounds a lot like you're saying "this might be useful, but then again it might not, so on the off-chance that it is useful, it is better to include it", which is article creep.
"The thing I'd be worried about, is where to put the statistics."
You don't need to worry because I know exactly where to put it: not on Wikipedia. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Crimea peninsula, illegally annexed by Russian Federation, is forcefully imposed as a part of occupant, which contradicts official position of FIA

I should point at inappropriate depiction of the map of Russian Federation in these pictures, widely used for F1 topics throughout the Wikipedia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Formula_1_all_over_the_world-2019.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Formula_One_World_Championship_races_by_host_country.svg

Crimean peninsula is marked green as a part of Russia, which contradicts official position of FIA, United Nations (see United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262) and all the free world. I noticed that many contributors were trying multiple times to correct the maps, but with no avail. Apparently the initial author has biased views and supports Russian occupation of Crimea: you can check his/her contributions, many of which contradict officially recognized borders of the states.

I urge those responsible for Wikipedia pages related to Formula 1 to withdraw both maps and substitute them by ones from alternate, at least neutral source. 192.68.51.226 (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It would help if you could find a better map. Britmax (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
We've had this discussion before (here and here) and the conclusion was reached that because the Crimea is Russian by de facto there is no point in changing it because then someone from the other side of the issue will claim that it is wrong (i.e. someone is bound to come and argue that Crimea is part of Russia) espically as both the articles on Russia and the Ukraine show the Crimea as belonging to their respective countries. In addition to this IP claims that the FIA has adopted a particular stance but fails to support this and the fact that all the free world also adopt this stance is plain wrong. As for getting a map from a neutral source, that would mean indicating the crimea as being disputed teratory but this map simply shouldn't be that detailed. I also think that the IP should adopt a good faith stance in regards to the maps creation and should stop making a mountain out a mole hill. No one comes here to study international borders it's really not a big deal besides the rest of the world map also depicts de facto borders, why should the Crimea be any different.
SSSB (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Non championship Grand Prix ?

According to this there were once, in calendar, Formula One races that didn't count towards the championship.
(... and entered another seven Grands Prix, qualifying for three of the five that counted towards the title. ) 185.18.60.191 (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. This is mentioned in the "Distinction between Formula One and World Championship races" section. DH85868993 (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

List of female drivers

Maria Teresa de Filippis was the first of five female Formula One racing drivers in the sport’s history. Italian Lella Lombardi was the second lady to compete in Formula One. Giovanna Amati [6] 185.18.60.191 (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. We have an article about this - see List of female Formula One drivers. DH85868993 (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

External link for "Sports for Climate Action" framework

DeFacto, SSSB: Ok, I've added the "Sports for Climate Action" framework's link to the External Links section, based on the spirit of your recent reverts quoting WP:ELPOINTS. It's not clear to me how this is beneficial for a casual reader of this article now, since why would anyone care to search for this term in the External links section rather than having it linked right at the point in the article where it's mentioned? Imagine that instead of wikilinking everything in the article, we would just have a massive list in the See Also section... So following same logic, how's this external link different in this aspect? Surely would be easier and more useful to link it right at the place where it's mentioned. cherkash (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

For starters the UN Sports for Climate Action is explained in the citation which is currently in the article. To link to some better explanation in the text there are a few options which I will list from least to most prefereable. If the UN Sports for Climate Action warrants an article, create it and the provide a wikilink to it. If it does not warrant an article then you could include the official page in a citation where it is mentioned.
SSSB (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:EL I don't think that website should be in the 'External links' section either. I doesn't contain anything that is directly relevant to the article. It that organisation isn't notable enough to have its own Wiki article, that doesn't mean we should link to its web page instead. Sure, if it's considered to be a reliable source, then if the article relies on a fact supported by it, then add a citation in a reference for the fact, but I don't think we should have it in a cite just as an excuse to link to it. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning postponements

@Aliwal2012: I fail to see how you edits add anything. Your edits may correctly identify the races as being postponed but because you've put 2020, but postponed due to worldwide coronavirus pandemic as well as New additions were to be the Vietnamese and Dutch Grand Prix in 2020. You are suggesting that these races wont take part in 2020 which is untrue. Therefore your edit is more confusing than useful. I therefore ask you to revert yourself.
SSSB (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Bogged down
I've read above message. You are hell bent on this! --Aliwal2012 (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not. I'm simply telling you how I am interpreting what you wrote.
SSSB (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ La gran depresión de la F-1
  2. ^ Harakiri
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Formula_One/Archive_5&oldid=1076356152"