Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Defaultsorting scuderia

I made some defaultsorting to some Italian formula one teams which have the word scuderia in the team's name, sorting them after the next word, since scuderia just means "team". This was questioned by Pyrope, who thinks they should all be sorted under S since the teams are usually being reffered to by their names including this word. What's your opinion? John Anderson (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Scuderia Ferrari should ignore "Scuderia" and sort as plain "Ferrari". Similarly for the others. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll just repeat what I said on your talk page... My point is mainly that the word "scuderia" is, for most teams, an integral part of the name. It isn't just equivalent to an English team appending "Team" to its name. The actual Italian word for "team" is "squadra" (Alfa Romeo used to use this now and again in the days of Alfa Corse.) "Scuderia" means "stable" (the equine sort) and is an affectation rather than a true description, hence it is an important part of the teams' names; names by which they are widely known even to those of us who have followed F1 since being able to focus.

You may simply talk about "Ferrari", but this is a very special case and using it to justify the others is poor logic. Most of these teams are universally known as "Scuderia xxx", such as Scuderia Milano and Scuderia Centro Sud whom I have never ever heard referred to without the word scuderia. In other cases the word is important to differentiate the racing team from a person, such as Scuderia Enrico Platé and Scuderia Achille Varzi. Categories aren't just an indexing function, they are there to aid navigation. Pages should be listed under the expected and accepted subject name. Pyrope 17:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly no reason to remove the Scuderia part. I also see no reason to not sort by "Team", since I don't know of many teams who use it as the first word in their name. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so we should sort McLaren under T for 2006 season articles? :-o John Anderson (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, sort for 2006 season articles? We're categorizing the actual article, so it'd be McLaren. And Ferrari should be Scuderia Ferrari. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly; to reiterate, pages should be listed under the expected and accepted subject name. If an Italian team is commonly known in English as "Scuderia xxx" then its page will be titled "Scuderia xxx" and it should be sorted as "Scuderia xxx". Yes, there may be quite a few Italian teams that end up listed under "S", but better that than scattering them around under non-intuitive headings. Pyrope 21:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is where our opinions really differ: I think the intuitive place to look for a team with the name Scuderia Xyz would be under X, not under S, regardless of if I and everybody else was always referring to the team as nothing but Scuderia Xyz rather than just Xyz. Just to make my opinion clear. If this is not what others think, then so be it and I won't argue about it. John Anderson (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can see my words don't really make sense. In 2006, McLaren was known as Team McLaren (before that it was West McLaren and from 2007 on it has been Vodafone McLaren). Do you mean McLaren should have been sorted under T back then? BTW, I wasn't really serious in my question. John Anderson (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC) – or should Team Lotus be sorted under T? John Anderson (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The articles should not need specific sorting, they should simply be listed by their article title. Your proposal doesn't make sense at all. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If the article title is Team Lotus, then the category should list Team Lotus, under T. What specific letter they fall under doesn't matter one damn bit. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree slightly with The359. Some teams are commonly known by terms other than their official title; McLaren, Ferrari and Lotus are three such. One of these cases provides no problems as we have a page simply titled McLaren. However, for disambiguation purposes we have Scuderia Ferrari and Team Lotus pages for those teams. Someone coming to WP is likely to want to know about "Lotus" or "Ferrari" as these are the common names by which the general public and muh of the motor racing media refer to them. Hence an exception can be made purely based on their fame and widespread common name. Smaller teams just aren't commonly referred to, even in fairly specialist media, as "Filippinetti" or "Milano" or "Centro Sud". They are almost always prefixed by scuderia, and if someone with a limited knowledge ever hears their names they will hear this form. They may not know anything else about motorsport, and as an English-language resource we certainly shouldn't assume that they know any Italian whatsoever, so "Scuderia xxx" is what they'll look for and expect to find. I personally actually don't have an issue with Scuderia Ferrari sorting to simply Ferrari, but I certainly don't think that it sets an unbreakable precedent for all Italian teams that use the term scuderia. Where would Ecurie Ecosse be if we started down that road? Pyrope 22:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I know very little about default sorting and care even less. But scuderia is not just a throwaway term for "team". It has all kinds of connotations going back to the very early days of Italian motorsport, and was chosen specifically instead of the various other words that mean similar things, like squadra. There haven't been that many teams that use the word, so I don't see a big deal about listing them under S. It's certainly true, as mentioned above, that some of the 1950s teams were always known as "Scuderia X", not just simply "X". I'd say the only Scuderia teams that are referred to without the Scuderia prefix are the current two - Ferrari and Toro Rosso. Also, BMS Scuderia Italia was always referred to as "Scuderia Italia", nothing else. Can't the problem teams like Ferrari be listed under S and F so that people can find them easily however they search? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can sort an article so that it appear twice in the same category, so Ferrari has to come either under F or under S. John Anderson (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You can, provided that you use a redirect for one of them. For example, Ferrari Grand Prix is a redirect to Scuderia Ferrari. Ferrari Grand Prix is not in any categories; but it could be; and in the absence of any cat sorting, would sort under "F"; and like any other categorised redirect, would show in italics. To see a non-F1 example, see Category:Disused railway stations in Oxfordshire, where Disused railway stations (Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway) appears three times: once as itself, and twice as redirects (Churn railway station and Upton and Blewbury railway station). --Redrose64 (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think some of you fail to understand what DEFAULTSORT does. It simply changes what letter an article is listed under for page categories. See Category:Formula One constructors. Anderson's suggestion is that Scuderia Ferrari be listed under F instead of S. This doesn't at all change how the name is displayed within the category, the category listing still has Scuderia Ferrari. It looks quite out of place to have every team there listed in alphabetical order by article title (Note for instance we have All American Racers, rather than the F1 team Anglo American Racers) except for the Scuderia teams, especially when we have the likes of Ecurie Nationale Belge listed under E. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that all it does? And all this discussion...? Lord, it doesn't matter. Just so long as it's consistent. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

For simplicity and intuitiveness, my preference would be for all the articles to be sorted by article title. DH85868993 (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me this argument is based around an incorrect translation from another language yes? The correct translation suggests the previos cat-sort and also prevents one team by way of example being referred to as 'Italy'. So, restore to previous and leave as is, surely it is that simple? --Falcadore (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. John Anderson (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a finishing note: I am not sure Falcadore is right in his assumption about what would be the correct translation, but I changed back anyway since this seemed to be what most people think might be right. John Anderson (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

USGP - speculative?

Hey everybody,

We're currently engaged in a minor head-butting session over at 2012 Formula One season. A user, Lucy-marie keeps reverting edits to the page, removing all references to the new United States Grand Prix. She claims that there is no contract in place and that the event is therefore speculation. However, the references provided as sources make it pretty clear that a deal has been finalised. This is an exact quote from the promoter: "We are extremely honoured and proud to reach an agreement with the F1 Commercial Rights Holder". And ever major media outet has reported that the deal will see the race run for ten years; how exactly would they know this if there was no contract signed? I believe that the 2012 page meets all the requirements in terms of credibility and that there is nothing speculative on it. But, as we're in a constant state of disagreement, I thought I'd put it to the wider community to get a resolution - if the USGP entry valid and therefore worthy of being included? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Bernie and FOM formally announced it so its not speculative. - mspete93 12:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

They signed a ten-year contract - nothing speculative about it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I've largely just been looking for ammo on this one. The user has also insisted there is no contract with Rome for a race and persistently removed it. Hell, she even got rid of Ecclestone's comments that he wants to expand the caendar to include America and Russia despite the act that he's the one person you could call an authorty on the subject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a contract between FOM and Austin, nothing to argue about. But is there actually a contract with Rome? I know that this is a project Bernie has wanted to get off the ground, but I can't remember a definitive statement "There is a contract for a 2012 race in Rome" from the usual sources. Maybe removing that one was the correct idea. QueenCake (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

2012 United States Grand Prix article

I notice the recent creation of 2012 United States Grand Prix. The above discussion notwithstanding, I think it's a bit early for this article to be created. But I wanted to check the concensus before {{prod}}ding it. DH85868993 (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Nuke it. We've barely even created the 2010 race pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete it. - mspete93 12:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to United States Grand Prix#The Future: Austin. --Falcadore (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No Deletion It's a notable subject unlike another normal grand prix. Because it's the first race in the United States for 5 years so people are eager to find details about it. It's not like the 2010 European Grand prix which is going to be a normal race with no real pre-race hype. People will read this article since it's more notable than a lot of others due to it's return and the fact that it's in the United States. (Wiki id2(talk) 20:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

Thing is, there's nothing to put in the article yet. There's a contract, but no circuit - no circuit design even - no real detail at all. It's a notable development, but it belongs squarely at United States Grand Prix, where the detail can be added as it emerges. The race itself is far too distant to warrant its own article yet. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed We'll use the redirect for this moment in time when the cicuit details are revealed we will se to it then (Wiki id2(talk) 22:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

A redirect, like Falcadore suggests, would be the best solution right now. In due time it will hopefully be enough relevant information to make a standalone article about it. John Anderson (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I would however advocate against the creation of any other 2011 or 2012 grand prix articles. --Falcadore (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Me too. John Anderson (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

2009 Formula One season

I notice someone has started to put two flags next to some links such as BMW Sauber, Romain Grosjean and Red Bull Racing. In my opinion only one flag should be used which is the flag they are entered/registered under. In the above cases for 2009 it would be Germany, France and Austria. The adding of the dual flags is also a bit sporadic and has only been done in some places on the page. I don't think this has ever been the concensus to have two flags and chances are the same thing has been done on other articles. Officially Mr X (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there should only be one flag.--Midgrid(talk) 11:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree here too. - mspete93 12:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Me too - I think any secondary flags should be removed on sight. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless they pitch themselves as a joint effort. For example, if a team comes out and specifically says "We're Australians and New Zealanders" sort of arrangement. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in that case, they would probably be an exception. Officially Mr X (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No, probably not even then, because a team can only race under one country's license at one time, and the flag of that country is what should be used. Nico Rosberg is both a German and a Finnish citizen and used to ride under a Finnish license early in his career, but in Formula One he has always used a German license and should thus just have a German flag next to his name. His father Keke Rosberg should have a Finnish flag of course. John Anderson (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see this heading the same way as the arguments about the flags in the infobox of Jordan Grand Prix... --Redrose64 (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not even then. It's not about how teams and drivers pitch themselves - that way confusion and original research lie. It's long been agreed at WP:F1 that we use the simple, verifiable approach of taking the nationality officially used by a driver or team. There's probably only one case in which a team or driver would have two flags: where they have officially entered under two nationalities. You can't use two at the same time, but Benetton Formula changed from British to Italian for the 1996 F1 season, so it seems reasonable that their former team infobox has both flags. Bertrand Gachot is another example. Other than that I can't think of any examples - in F1 Grosjean has only raced under the French flag, Rosberg only under the German one, Red Bull only under the Austrian one. The current naming situation with BMW Sauber confuses the situation there a little, but however we eventually split things up when the team sort their name out, the team is currently Swiss, so the team infobox should show Swiss (since it doesn't show former status). 4u1e (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Edgar Barth was East German until 1957, then West German, but he still only has one flag, because until 1959, the flag of East Germany obviously looked exactly the same as the flag of West Germany. John Anderson (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Unnamed Austin International Circuit

FYI, Unnamed Austin International Circuit has been created and subsequently proposed for deletion. Please add any thoughts you may have on the matter to the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:American Formula One drivers at Indianapolis 500 1950-1960

I have proposed that Category:American Formula One drivers at Indianapolis 500 1950-1960 be renamed to <something else>. Please add any thoughts you may have on the matter at the CfD discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Grand Prix before Formula One

I have proposed that Category:Grand Prix before Formula One be renamed as Category:Pre-Formula One Grands Prix. Please add any thoughts you may have on the matter at the rename discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

DASHBot

As some of you may have noticed, DASHBot has been replacing redirects in navbox templates. Where this mostly affects templates of interest to this project is in the "F1 cars yyyy" templates. In about 6 hours time, I plan to revert some of DASHBot's changes, specifically:

• instances where DASHBot has replaced a redirect to an article section, like this. My rationale is that not only does the replacement not achieve the "bolding effect" (the stated intent of the replacement operation), but if the section is subsequently broken out as a separate article, the original link is lost. The bot's author has agreed with this rationale on his talk page.
• replacement of chassis redirects to constructor articles (e.g. here). Again, if the chassis article is ever created, the link from the template will be lost.

I thought I'd mention my plans here in case anyone has any violent objections. BTW, if someone else wants to perform the task before I get to it, I won't be offended. DH85868993 (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. DH85868993 (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia always present all information as FIA does?

I think this is the place to ask this...

The main reason given for giving Sauber's name as BMW Sauber this year has been, that this is what FIA does. Fair enough, but then, why is this principle not upheld in some other circumstances? FIA treats the present Lotus team as the same as the old Lotus team, but in that regard Wikipedia seems to have taken its own way and treat them as two different teams. When should Wikipedia plainly do as FIA does, and when should Wikipedia be free to make its own decisions on how to present the facts? -Ulla — 07:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The FIA has never considered the two Lotuses to be the same. They're not statisticians. And FOM also uses the term BMW Sauber, since that is the entry's name. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think they do: "A partnership between the Malaysian Government and a consortium of Malaysian entrepreneurs, 1Malaysia F1 Team returns the Lotus name as a constructor to Formula One for the first time since 1994."FIA press release They wouldn't talk about a return if it wasn't the same. -Ulla — 11:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not treating them as the same team. It's just stating the facts. The name 'Lotus' has returned. Fact. 'Team Lotus' has not returned. Fact. - mspete93 12:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Your choice of quote pretty much defines the limits of your argument. 1Malaysia F1 Team returns the Lotus name, just the name. To parallel that, Bruno Senna also returns the Senna name to Formula One, but Bruno's results aren't going to be adding to Ayrton's stats are they? --Falcadore (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The present Lotus has as much to do with the historical Team Lotus as the present Mercedes Petronas GP has to do with the historical Mercedes.  Dr. Loosmark  13:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really, since both the 1950s version of Mercedes and the current one were/are both works teams. The new Lotus team is not a Lotus works team. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what do you mean by "works team". The present Mercedes is simply the Brawn GP re-badged.  Dr. Loosmark  13:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Works team = run and controlled by the factory / manufacturer. The present Mercedes team is indeed Brawn GP rebadged, but it is run and controlled by Mercedes-Benz. Lotus Racing is run by a Malaysian conglomerate and sponsored by Lotus Cars, itself owned by the Malaysian government. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well Lotus is owned by Proton and Ferrari is owned by FIAT.  Dr. Loosmark  14:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Lotus Racing is run by a conglomerate which includes Proton, and that's why they are able to use the Lotus name. Lotus Cars have nothing else to do with Lotus Racing. Ferrari run Scuderia Ferrari in its entirety. The fact that Ferrari is part of the FIAT group does not mean that FIAT run Scuderia Ferrari. I don't really see the point you're making. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Further evidence that the FIA considers the old and new Lotus as different teams is that the webpage for the current team lists "First season" as "2010", "World Championships" as "0" and "Highest race finish" as "13(th place)". DH85868993 (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it was presented differently, as an addition to the previous Lotus, earlier. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have seen the information presented so somewhere. Maybe it was on the homepage of some TV channel. -Ulla — 08:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe we are still having to disucss Lotus. Anyway, back to the main topic, BMW Sauber is the name of the team, end of story. Calling it anything else is just making it up, isn't it? - mspete93 14:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The main topic BMW Sauber? No, the main topic under this headline is if Wikipedia should always follow what FIA says or if there can be circumstances where Wikipedia decides to present information somewhat different from how FIA does. -Ulla — 08:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe we're still discussing Sauber, pete. This is at least the third time that it's come up. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ulla, it's a bit hard to address your question without an example. It would seem that we're not inconsistent with the FIA on Lotus - are there any examples where we are inconsistent? I have to say though, that this looks very much like another attempt to rename the Sauber articles, and I can see little point in going back to that question until the change in BMW Sauber's name - which we all know is coming - actually occurs. 4u1e (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought that it was the BMW Sauber nonsense that had triggered this discussion following earlier discussions about how to present the name in results tables. I can't believe we're still discussing it either. With regards to the title question, everything on Wikipedia should be sourced. The most reliable sources when it comes to race results are the FIA or FOM. That is why we should go by what they say. - mspete93 17:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no, mspete. You also need to consider the principles of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ASTONISH. If the only sources that used the full title were FIA- and FOM-related and the overwhelming majority of other reliable sources (major national media outlets, respected book authors, specialist press etc.) used another form then this latter one would be the form to go with. However, I agree that in this case every source I know of still uses "BMW Sauber" as the team name up front, only reverting to a simplified "Sauber" once the identity of the team has been established, so a badly chosen example. A better example would probably be British Racing Motors, where although they were and are known as the "BRM Team" were actually the "Owen Racing Organisation" for most of their life. Interestingly, even FOM use "BRM" so again the example isn't perfect. Pyrope 20:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd quibble with the reliability of FOM's race results for the older races (pre-1990s) too. I've come across quite a few factual errors over the years. Nonetheless, if we do go away from the 'official' sources, it should be for a good reason, not just because we don't like what they say. 4u1e (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Are they based in Hingham ? DO they have registered offices in Hingham ? Do they still use design facilities in Norfolk ? Are they the works team of the Lotus brand ?

I am a little confused. When I went to fit some stairs and mezzanine floors in the R&D section of the Lotus factory we had to move two old tatty cardboard boxes before we started - they were the Lotus bikes used in the Olympics and there were lots of new cars with tape over the logos/name badges and those funny body pieces to disguise them from cameras that were being tested and sent out on track and into the Norfolk countryside. THey also had lots of photos from the F1 team of old, as well as pieces of Lotus sports cars that were being crash tested just lying about outside to rot. The pay came from Lotus even though it was owned by some asian company

Surely the heritage comes from a different place than the brand. If it is a Norfolk team run from the old Lotus factory then surely it would deserve the name and the heritage. If it is a Lotus owned team but based in Asia they would still deserve the name surely?

Chaosdruid (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Seasons articles and links to individual GPs

Hi everyone.

I was looking at the 2010 season article earlier to try and find a correct link format for the 2010 Turkish Grand Prix and was surprised to find that it wasn't linked from any of the tables in the article. Having a quick look back at 2009, it seems that the individual races are linked from the "race calendar" section, so I added "2010 " before all the links here presuming that to be very sensible practice. However this format doesn't seem to be replicated across all the season articles (well, certainly not 2008 Formula One season (where for example you have ING Australian Grand Prix in one column (Race Title) followed by Australian Grand Prix (again, this time under "Grand Prix". Surely the Race Title should point to the general Grand Prix and the next column the specific race?

I would also suggest that the specific race is linked to, rather than the general overall article, in the results (Pole, FL, Winning Driver/Constructor...) table too. This would be consistent with other sports seasons I have seen.

Has this been discussed before by WP:F1?

—User:MDCollins (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I very recently had abuse showered on my talk page because I reverted an edit very similar to what you suggest. Presently there are no less than five sets of links to the individual Grands Prix reports in the results and standings section. I did not feel that a sixth set of links to those articles were warranted. --Falcadore (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That having been said, the most prominent set of links occurs in the first table of the results and standings section, a table that is entirely superflous to the article as all it does is re-list information presented elsewhere. The order of the Grands Prix is established in the calendar near the top of the article. Race winners, fastest laps and pole positions (the later two do not actually contribute to the season results) are detailed in the results matrix, so really the prominent link to the individual Grands Prix reports is the most valuable function of this table and could easily be shifted to another table, eliminating the need for this table to appear at all. --Falcadore (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I take your point that too many links aren't necessary. However, to my view some locations are more prominent than others. The links above the matrices I don't feel are particularly obvious, as they are only short abbreviations and are a little easter-eggy. I'm not going to argue for or against the result summary pole/fl etc - it's not that obvious from the matrix but I see that it is there. For my money however, if that table remained, I would link to the season-specific race from column 1 and remove the "report" column - often that type of column I've seen links to an external reference. As I said, places where I would expect the "2010 race" links to be are in the calendar (as otherwise you have two identical links in consecutive columns), and in the results and standings table as I just mentioned. I don't really have much time to join the project, but I've given you my thoughts and leave you all to take it further if you wish!—User:MDCollins (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally I have absolutely no issues with all text in all tables being linked. The practice of only linking the first instance of a term is for prose text, where too many blue links can make it unreadable. However, tables are used very differently and links don't disrupt the text in the same way. I actually find it very annoying when people only link the first instance in a table, which then means that if you are looking up a particular topic you need to scan up through the whole table, and possibly other tables, to find the one and only link to the other topic. Link away. Pyrope 14:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:REPEATLINK allows WP:OVERLINK to be ignored in certain circumstances. Failing that, WP:IAR? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Repeatlink sums up that all tabular rows should stand on their own (especially sortable ones). I don't think Falcadore was arguing against linking per se; my issue was whether for example 2010 Formula One season#Grands Prix should link to "2010 Bahrain Grand Prix" or just "Bahrain Grand Prix".—User:MDCollins (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. That table DOES link to the 2010 race articles. --Falcadore (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite. It links to both the generic GP article and also to the specific event article. Pyrope 20:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: Falcadore and Pyrope - yes it does. Only because I was BOLD and changed them yesterday (diff). As does 2009 which is where I thought would be the existing practice. However 2008 doesn't, nor do some of the others I've randomly checked. I was just bringing this here to see if there would be consensus to agree on using the format for all of your articles. And to raise the possibility of linking specifically to the actual races referred to in other (result-type) tables in the articles.—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

OK this is a little weird, we now seem to be discussing two different tables simultaneously. The one indicated by your link above - 2010 Formula One season#Grands Prix - ALWAYS has had links to the 2010 reports and additionally is not the table you later refered to as having changed yourself. Would you mind please clarifying? --Falcadore (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so you were actually referring to the 2010 Formula One season#2010 calendar table? In that case I'd say you had it the wrong way round. The specific year's race should link from the race title, while the generic Grand Prix history ought to link from the "Grand Prix" header. Pyrope 23:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Does however pose another issue - why are there two columns essentially with the same information? The only real difference is the presence of the event sponsor. It would perhaps be preferable links notwithstanding to delete one of those columns completely. It is not apparent by the name of either column that the it should link to the specific race report for that year, nor indeed perhaps it should. A report column could established to the right of that table, which would then have the additional benefit of being able to delete entirely the Grands Prix table at the top of the Results and Standings section as its contents would then be entirely duplicated elsewhere in the article.

Does that make sense? --Falcadore (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Official" or "formal" race titles

Hey gang. As MiszaBot II seems to have been the most actice contributor here for the last few days I thought I'd sling an idea out there and see what you all think. For some time now we have had each race's "official" title in the infobox and many races also have a parenthesized reference to the race's "formal" title in the lead. However, I can't help noticing that there are never any sources provided for these, and indeed many of them contradict the usual reliable sources that are available. We have discussed this before (here) but that conversation fizzled out and nothing was done. I'd like to propose that we make it a habit to use the race title as given on the front of the official event program as out standard. I realise that since the 1950s it hasn't been common practice to use the numerator for the Xth Location Y Grand Prix and that some like this approach, but I feel that would be better just to mention that nugget of info in the lead section, for example:

The 1971 British Grand Prix (formally the Woolmark British Grand Prix)^ref was a Formula One motor race held on 17 July 1971, at the Silverstone Circuit. It was the 24th British Grand Prix to have been run, and was the sixth race of the 1971 Formula One season. Yadda yadda yadda, JYS domination, etc etc etc.

How does that grab folks.? Pyrope 15:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I really don't like it when sponsors attempt to bag naming rights. Did they organise the first running of the race? If not, don't give them credit for any of the others. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

When you organise a race you get to choose what to call it. If you decide to take some money from another body on the understanding that their name is part of the name then that is your prerogative. I'm not suggesting that we go round and change all the page names to sponsored formal titles, that would contradict WP:COMMONNAME, but where we quote a race's official title then it is the official title that we should use, not some home-cooked hokum based on personal preferences. Pyrope 03:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the full formal title, including the title sponsor, should be use in the facts table but not in the introduction to the text itself, because it makes the text heavy to read. In the regular article about the grand prix, the formal titles over the years can be given a special section in the historic text but the current title sponsor should not be given any precedence there or anywhere else in the text. John Anderson (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

America 2012: same page, same problem

Hi again guys

I hate doing this, but we've got another issue over at the 2012 page. A user - the same user as before - keeps editing out a line of the article that reads as follows: "In May 2010, it was announced that Austin, Texas would host the return of the United States Grand Prix, the first since Indianapolis in 2007. The track will be a brand-new and purpose-built permanent circuit designed by Herman Tilke." Once again it carries a suitable reference. However, the user keeps removing the sentence that Tilke will be designing the circuit, claiming it is advertising. Since there's only about three people who edit the page regularly, we're not going to settle it ourselves, so I'm putting this to the WikiProject: does describing the circuit as being designed by Tilke constitute advertising? I don't think so. I think he's a notable person since he's considered the world's leading circuit designer and he has his own page here on Wikipedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No it does not. Tilke has designed the last six or so new F1 circuits yes? It's inherently notable that the folks at Austin have employed the world's leading circuit architect for the purpose. It helps to underline the seriousness of their plan unlike say recent developments with the British GP were people have cobbled together plans for Brands Hatch and Donington which have ultimately been shown to be half-baked. --Falcadore (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's hardly as though Tilke is likely to be touting for business using his Wikipedia entry. Tilke and his tracks are the subject of much discussion in Formula One circles and so the fact that this track is to be designed by his company is certainly a notable fact worth including. Pyrope 03:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The announcement of Tilke designing the track has been covered by serious news outlets [1] [2] [3] that have no affiliation (as far as I am aware) with Tilke. If these can talk about it without it being seen as advertising, why can't it be on Wikipedia? - mspete93 16:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, once again, I'm largely just using WP:F1 to make a point. I hate doing it, but that's the way it has to be. As I said, there's only a handful of us who regularly edit the page, and we're not going to come to a consensus of our own. I'm really just trying to send message to this particular user - a) that there is a consensus and b) if she has an issue with something, she should discuss it first, especially since she demanded it of everyone else. She's struck again overnight, removing the European/Spanish flags on the 2010 season page because they're "too conentious" despiea consensus saying that they should remain in place. I appreciate the fact that she wants to make the pages the best they can be, but I'm not big on the way she goes about doing it and I suspect there's a few others who feel the same way. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The passage is not advertising for Tilke. After all, he is only mentioned briefly and in a way which should be seen as encyclopedic, just as others here have pointed out. What's wrong with the rest, isn't the source for the announcment of a new circuit being planned in Austin good enough (with or without the reference to Tilke)? John Anderson (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this. I've reverted this edit before. It is in no way an advert for Tilke. I just don't understand how anyone could see it that way. The idea that simply wikilinking to a person is in some way promoting his business is bizarre. If I link to George Clooney when I'm talking about a film that he stars in, is that advertising or promoting his career? Hardly. If this were the case, then all internal links to individuals would need to be removed, and I'd love to see how that's accepted by editors in general. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The user saying this is deeply opposed to the 2012 page. She thinks it's far too speculative. A while ago, Bernie Ecclestone was talking about how he'd like to expand the chamionship beyond twenty races; it was quoted and referenced properly, but the user in question kept deleting it and refused to back down over it. I gather she's trying to cut as much out of the article as possible so that she can submit it for deletion on the grounds that it contains no new information and is therefore unnecessary. After all, she was arguing against the inclusion of the US Grand Prix in the table on the grounds that there was "no contract" and that the race "might not happen in 2012 even if they say it will". I don't understand why she didn't just start a discussion here, and she ignores all posts to her talk page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Drivers and Constructors tables and European GP flag

On the Formula one articles there appear to be a very large number of tables. You have one for the drivers standings, one for the constructors standings, one for the race summary, one for the driver positions in the races, one for the constructors positions in races and another for the full list of all teams and drivers. There are two table which merit their inclusion and that is, the car release schedule and the race schedule. Also there is an unresolved discussion regarding the use of the flag for European GP it resulted in the flags for the race official titles being removed from the race schedule. The Spanish flag is used for European grand prix. This needs resolving to conclude those discussions.

I personally think that there needs to be a slimming down of the number of tables as they are duplicative and repetitive. Do we need two table which say the same thing effectively. One say this is where there driver finished and one saying this is how many points they got. The same is true for the constructors.

Also having the Spanish flag appear twice is misleading in the tables as there are not two races called the Spanish Grand Prix. There is also repetition within the tables as the top header is repeated at the bottom of each standings table which is unnecessary.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Spanish flag is there to illustrate the country the race took place in, rather than what the title of the race is. The latter usage would just be repetition/decoration. AlexJ (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well done for beating me to bringing this up. There certainly are far to many tables on the F1 season articles. There are eight tables on this season's articles, as well as most from recent years. Going through them table by table:

• Car release schedule - Debatable this one, it is easily sourced and could be useful, but I'm not sure if its really notable enough to warrant its inclusion on the main season article. A note in each individual car article might be more appropriate. Also, if the older seasons pages get improved, it will be very hard to actually fill this table out, to keep consistancy across articles.
• Teams and drivers - Obviously important enough to keep.
• 2010 calendar - Again important, but I would question having both a "Race Title" and "Grand Prix" column (I think this has been brought up before)
• Results and standings - The Grands Prix table is the one I don't think we need, while it does serve a useful purpose in showing the pole, fastest lap and winner of each race, it is a duplication of information already present. The much more useful Drivers and Constructors table's already show this information, together with the rest of the results, these are the most important tables on the page.
• Statistics - Utterly unnecessary, again a duplication of information present in the tables just above. All they essentially do is count up the stats present and put them in a small, rather unreadable table. Small grey boxes with numbers is not a good way to present any information. This also seems to contravene WP:NOT#STATS, there are plenty of places out there for statistical information.

That's my take on the tables, definitely ditching the Stats tables and questioning over the need of the Grand Prix and Car release tables.

As for the flag for the European Grand Prix, the consensus was to have the flag of the location, considering there is not a European flag. (The E.U. flag isn't the flag of Europe). QueenCake (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree on the tables question. I'd be happy to dump the "statistics" tables particularly. Any reduction in the number of tables would be a good thing.

Please let's not go through the argument about the European flag again. There was a clear consensus to use the flag of the host nation, and repeated requests to discuss it again, by the same user each time, are unhelpful. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Mostly agree with Bretonbanquet's comments, all of them! I addition, the identification of the repeated headers in the longer tables misses the point that on smaller screens and at lower resolutions it is impossible otherwise to see the lower entries and the headings simultaneously. Pyrope 14:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I was also going to bring up the matter of tables, as loading the 2010 season page for me is currently taking much longer than other pages on Wikipedia which load instantly. The long list of references at the bottom may not be helping, but removing the statistics tables are the best way of doing it. Not sure that the car release schedule is really that important for the article considering we've ditched tables for testing. As for the flags, it was concluded that they should be there for the venue rather than the title, as the location of the venue cannot be disputed, unless the track borders two countries! - mspete93 14:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Grands Prix table is almost completely duplicated. Pole and fastest lap are shown in the results matrix. As neither contribute to season results in anyway they are a minor detail at best. The only real item here that needs relocation in the table is the prominent link to the race reports. We can shift them further up the page into the calendar table and delete the Grands Prix table completely to no loss of readability.

The Spanish/European flag issue has been resolved, more than once, previously. Just because you disagree with a previous resolution doesn't mean in needs re-resolving, especially as you have taken part in previous discussions. --Falcadore (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression the Flags issue had only been resolved for the List of Races table. This did not conclude which flags to use for the other tables, or on the articles themselves. Also The European Flag is used throughout the list of races per year tables. I have also been looking back over the discussions regarding the flags and the only tables suggested regarded the list of races and not results or other tables.--18:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If its resolved for one table its resolved for all - why start debating what's already settled? QueenCake (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There's certainly no point in having different policies for different tables, and I can't imagine any editor thinking that would be a good idea. The host nation flag policy should apply across the board. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Its not resolved as the flag is used on some tables and not on others as referenced above, Also the Grand Prix List table is the only one to discriminate between a location and and the title. In that list the flag appears next to the location in that table and in the other tables, it appear under the title for the races. EUR for Europe is used as the title of the race and not VAL or NUR For Valencia or the Nurburgring which would be used as the locations. Do not see this as obstructive or in bad faith it is a legitimate good faith contribution. The reason it has only now been bought up is because it was too controversial to bring up on its own, and as the table look like getting a major overhaul this discussion may as-well be folded in and then al the issues can be dealt with at the same time.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the European flag is not just the flag for EU, it is and was before EU took it also the flag of the Council of Europe and it has been stated officially from that body that it may be used in any all-European circumstances. This makes me want to use it for the European Grand Prix (as is also done in some places, like in the page on the Grand Prix itself and in the pages on the pre-war Grand Prix racing even if the latter acctually is anacronistic) but I have bowed to the overwhelming majority in this case and think we should let the matter rest. John Anderson (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Back to the table discussion, I've seen several comments agreeing in not wanting the Statistics tables included and cutting down the articles. Shall we ditch them? Or is there a good reason for there inclusion here on an encyclopaedia? QueenCake (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)