DH85868993 (talk | contribs) →2020 season: created |
Removing expired RFC template. |
||
Line 54:
==British racers==
Due to an ongoing discussion at [[Tom Pryce]], I'm seeking a consensus (or lack there of) for making an exemption for British racers' infoboxes.
|
Revision as of 17:01, 19 November 2018
Formula One Project‑class | |||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Lap leader charts
During the GA review of 2015 Mexican Grand Prix, the reviewer Saskoiler suggested a caption to be added for the lap leader chart. I do not really consider this necessary and I also do not know if it is technically possible, so I wanted to get your thoughts on it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something, why would we need a caption? The "Lap Leader" title I think makes it clear enough, we'd just be repeating that surely? CDRL102 (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
World Constructors' Championship standings
So, as far as I can tell, for the all seasons prior to 2014 the results delineate which car scored each result. Here is an example from the 2013 season, As you can see, for example, the #9 Mercedes won in Monaco while the #10 finished Fourth. However, beginning with the pages for the 2014 seasons and beyond, the results are no longer sorted by car number but that the first finisher goes in the top row while the second finished goes in the second row for the team. Here is an example of the 2016 season, for example. I am just wondering if there was a change in the formatting policy or if the most recent seasons need to be brought in line with the prior way of doing things. 100.0.38.202 (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- The seasons prior to 2014 should be arranged in the same way as those post 2014 as this is the agreed format throughout WP:F1 the pre 2014 season simply haven't been updated to reflect this. SSSB (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- That statement is not correct. The format currently in use in the post-2013 articles was only discussed in the context of the post-2013 articles (i.e. since permanent driver numbers were allocated). There has never been agreement to use it for the pre-2014 articles. Not to mention that it doesn't even reflect the consensus from the October 2017 discussion (which was the original proposal from that discussion, with car numbers, as confirmed by the editor who closed the discussion). DH85868993 (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- Why does it matter anyway? It makes no difference to the pointscore which car scored the points. --Falcadore (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that it doesn't matter which car scored the points. But it does make a difference whether we have a table format which is intuitive for readers to understand, or one which some readers find confusing. DH85868993 (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- I actually believe that the consensus over the current post-2013 format should be re-evaluated, given that quite a lot of readers are confused by the tables as they are now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Stop making mountain out of a molehill. Three requests in three months is NOT a lot at all.Tvx1 16:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Why not just create an extra column at the start containing the car's numbers, listed numerically by constructor. That way, you get it matching the older articles and also it can be disambiguated easily. - J man708 (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- You mean as per the consensus of the October 2017 discussion? Sounds like a good idea to me... DH85868993 (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Why not just create an extra column at the start containing the car's numbers, listed numerically by constructor. That way, you get it matching the older articles and also it can be disambiguated easily. - J man708 (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Stop making mountain out of a molehill. Three requests in three months is NOT a lot at all.Tvx1 16:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- I actually believe that the consensus over the current post-2013 format should be re-evaluated, given that quite a lot of readers are confused by the tables as they are now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that it doesn't matter which car scored the points. But it does make a difference whether we have a table format which is intuitive for readers to understand, or one which some readers find confusing. DH85868993 (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Constructors' Standings revisited
Hey folks! I hate to bring this debate up again but the complaints are piling up. Readers clearly do not understand the way the Constructors' Table is formatted at the moment. I suggest reverting back to the pre-2014 way, having one row for each driver. Please discuss. And see the 2018 season talk page for a number of complaints about it just in the last couple of days. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Please do not tell blatant untruths. There have been barely three requests in three months time on the 2018 talk page. That’s nowhere near piling up. Likewise there have barely been any relevant edits to the tables. Your general claim that “readers don’t understand the table” is just plain wrong. For every user that puts a talk page request, there hundreds who visit the article and understand everything just fine. Stop making a drama where there is none. It was properly evaluated in late July and no consensus was achieved to change it. Rehashing this every other week is nothing near constructive.Tvx1 16:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Just to throw some minor tidbit into the ring regarding constructor standings, the system used now is also the system that has been used for manufacturer standings in the FIA World Endurance Championship season articles, with the highest score listed first, and I can recall only one or two instances of the order of the manufacturer standings being questioned in the past five years. Granted, those articles have much less eyes on them than the F1 articles do, but I believe the instances of people attempting to "correct" or saying the standings are wrong are extremely minor compared to the amount of eyes who have read the tables. The359 (Talk) 15:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- I suppose that if the entries per constructor are also clearly per driver, then there would be no confusion at all. That's got to be better than even a little confusion. What's the perceived benefit to the article of having the current, apparently (to some) illogical, arrangement? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Aaaaand there's another one. But I am obviously out of line pointing that out... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Larrousse Lola 1990
Just on a whim I was reading through List of Formula One constructors, and it makes note of the fact that the FIA took away Larrousse's points for the 1990 season because they incorrectly registered their cars as Larrousse rather than Lola. Larrousse also mentions this same fact.
However 1990 Formula One season lists Lola-Lamborghini as finishing 6th in the constructors' championship with 11 points. The results table on Larrousse, Lola LC90, and Lola Cars also lists this same information, 6th place with 11 points. Was Larrousse excluded from the championship, similar to McLaren in recent years? Were their points simply taken away from their total as a team? Which is the correct way to present this information? The359 (Talk) 18:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
British racers
Due to an ongoing discussion at Tom Pryce, I'm seeking a consensus (or lack there of) for making an exemption for British racers' infoboxes.
Should we have it in the infoboxes of British racers - nationalities & flags of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales? See Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- No, i.e. Oppose. They never raced in F1 under those flags. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. This would just create unnecessary confusion. There is no guideline, let alone policy, explicitly requesting this. The FIA follows legal nationalities of sovereign states and we should reflect that. For UK drivers with substantial pride over their ethnic "nationality", it can detailed in the prose and even in the lead. However, there are also many drivers like Lewis Hamilton, Jenson Button, Damon Hill, etc who never mentioned anything about their British sub-nationalities. Adding a second nationality field in their infoboxes would be plainly ridiculous. It would also be confusing with drivers, like Bertrand Gachot, who actually have represented different nationalities at different points in their careers. On a side note, I don't believe this is an issue exclusive to F1. The FIA uses nationalities of sovereign states in all motor racing classes it governs. So do the FIM. Therefore, I believe it would have been better if this were raised at WT:MOTOR, not here.Tvx1 18:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- I won't object to creating a mirror of this RFC at WT:MOTOR. If you know how to do that? go for it. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe you could transclude this section there.Tvx1 21:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know how to do that. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe you could transclude this section there.Tvx1 21:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- I won't object to creating a mirror of this RFC at WT:MOTOR. If you know how to do that? go for it. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Just use prose to properly explain the issue and avoid corrupting the purpose of a Formula One specific infobox/template. It is not difficult. --Falcadore (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- I am also quite concerned about the precedent that this could then be used by poponents of American states, Canadian provinces, English counties, French departments and so on. --Falcadore (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, Belgian regions springs to mind as well. Stoffel Vandoorne could become a Flemish driver and Jacky Ickx a Brussels driver.Tvx1 22:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Presumably, because you raise it in this project, you mean in the "Infobox F1 driver" infobox, and I would say no to that as that is for the nationality used to get the racing licence, which for the nations of the UK you mention, would generally be British. However, as with the case in the "Tom Pryce" article, that must never get in the way of using the person's own identified nationality (if reliably sourced and given due weight) in the associated "Infobox person" template, where by-the-way and per WP:FLAGCRUFT, would not be accompanied with a flag. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- As has been explained very clearly to you, the fact that the infobox is coded as two nested infoboxes is NOT clear to the readers in any way. That is editor knowledge only. There is nothing in the infobox as seen in the article has no visible distinction between a "person infobox" and a "F1 driver infobox". Therefore adding a second nationality field nearby would be utterly confusing. In fact, I don't even know why the "Infobox person" part is there in the coding. It can be produced identically using just the "Infobox F1 Driver" template. Moreover, the more I look at other articles, the more it looks like Tom Pryce's article was an exception in using the Infobox Person coding. Others like Lewis Hamilton, John Watson, Jim Clark and many others don't have that coding at all.Tvx1 12:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sure I remember a discussion like this previously about another British driver's nationality (can't remember who though). Had a look at some Scottish drivers and it's been brought up on the talk pages of David Coulthard, Dario Franchitti, Colin McRae and Jackie Stewart - but all the Scottish F1 drivers have British as their nationality in the infobox, beside the link to the Super Licence page. It should stay that way with all of the British drivers. Boothy m (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as with most sports, the sporting nationality of an F1 driver is the only one that matters. Which is why Max Verstappen is listed as Dutch, despite being born in Belgium, and Nico Rosberg being listed as German, despite being half-Finnish. All F1 drivers competed under British flag, not the English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish flags, and so that flag is of little importance. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- Just to note that, and to avoid confusion, Tvx1 has, despite my personal request to them, removed the "infobox person" template from the Tom Price article even though this discussion is still ongoing. That template had been in the article for 11 months, and its presence is mentioned in this discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
This entire section is a crass exercise in discussion forking. This issue does raise good questions, but the discussion already well underway at the Tom Pryce page is a perfectly fine venue for working these out. The Pryce situation is a very nicely encapsulated exemplar of the issues raised and can easily be used as a template once things have been thoroughly thrashed out there. Please don't waste people's time by requiring that they say everything twice. Pyrope 12:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with having Nationality = Welsh in the Biog Infobox, and 'Sporting Code' + Union Jack F1 Infobox, as he certainly did drive for Britain / uk. This is the 'compromise' refered to on the Pryce Talk page.
- Agree with Pyrope that this is a fork. Sian EJ (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- As has been explained both here and at Tom Pryce's talk page, the readers only see one infobox, not two, even if it's code as two nested ones. That difference is not clear and thus it creates confusion. It's obvious that those supporting the inclusion of Welsh in the infobox are clinging desperately to that "infobox person" code because it's the only argument they have in favor of their stance. And including code solely for this purpose solely in that article is just poor editorial practice.Tvx1 19:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. 'Poor editorial practice' (User:Tvx) is the sensoring of information about the person. You suggest that a clear difference is made between the person and the driver in the infobox. @Pelmeen10: suggested something similar on Pryce's Talk page. It can be done simply by stating:
- Nationality = Welsh
- Licence / Passport / Citizenship = British.
- but to sensor one or the other in the infobox equates to bias and providing the reader with mis-information. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Your accusations are utterly hilarious. Firstly because his Welshness is celebrated throughout the article. Secondly, because you are apparently unable to even spell censorship. Nothing is being censored here. Stop seeing this a personal thing.Tvx1 20:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I cannot see how it is censoring to leave out irrelevant information. Wales is not a nation state, so it is ridiculous to enter "Welsh" under nationality. There is no bias there, it is simply the fact of the matter. There might be Welsh people who do not like that fact (and plenty of Scottish or Catalan ones at that), but Wikipedia is not the place to fight out those arguments. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Just noticed this. There is no reason to have an Infobox person because there's effectively nothing in it. It would only exist to make a point. The F1 infobox suffices in all cases. Where two nationalities exist (Romain Grosjean, Nico Rosberg) then the sporting nationality (or whatever term you choose to use) goes in the infobox, and any other nationalities are explained in the prose, usually the lead. Once we start having dual or supposed "preferred" nationalities in the infobox, we risk confusing the reader and creating a precedent for relative chaos across F1 driver articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Neutral - I've no objections to making an exemption for Tom Pryce if such an exemption includes all British racers. I do oppose the 'self-identification' argument for these articles. The F1 should be the decider of racers nationality. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose The flag is likely to be taken as nation of birth, which it isn't (necessarily), & that's likely to create confusion. There's enough ignorance out there now; let's not add to it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Williams-Wolf drivers
The Williams-Wolf drivers of 1976 enter the drivers category of Williams drivers or Wolf drivers?. I've been looking at that list of pilots and it's not clear to me. --Adriel 00 (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- Jacky Ickx' F1 results table suggests that the cars were entered by "Frank Williams Racing Cars" for the first three races, then by "Walter Wolf Racing" for the remainder of the season. So, it looks as though the drivers who drove in the first three races have been included in Category:Williams Formula One drivers and drivers who drove from race 4 onwards have been included in Category:Wolf Formula One drivers (except that Chris Amon is not in Category:Wolf Formula One drivers). But I'm not sure if that's correct - do we have a good source to confirm that the cars were entered by "Walter Wolf Racing" from race 4 onwards? Frank_Williams_Racing_Cars#Wolf–Williams_Racing_(1976) suggests that the team became "Wolf-Williams Racing" in 1976 and didn't become "Walter Wolf Racing" until 1977. DH85868993 (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Request for feedback
Please could people give feedback on a proposed change to the 2019 championship page regarding driver changes, here. MetalDylan (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
List of Formula One podium finishers nominated for deletion
List of Formula One podium finishers has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
2020 season
With a new race in Vietnam confirmed, and some drivers having contracts for the 2020 season, is it now the right time to start the article? Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'd say so. 1.129.108.91 (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'd start with a draft. We can then submit it once the current season is finished. It's only two more and that article doesn't require as much effort anymore.Tvx1 13:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Just create one and, so long as it can be defended against any WP:CRYSTAL/WP:TOOSOON allegations (with adequate RSes, etc.), it should be fine. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- You could create a stub without any real fear of deletion, as there are enough sources. There is a case for holding off for a bit longer, until we have something more than just an announcement. These races do not always happen. QueenCake (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- A draft has been created — Draft:2020 Formula One World Championship. It was mostly just the 2019 article carried over, so I've gutted it of the irrelevant stuff. 1.144.104.197 (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've updated it with every driver and circuit under contract that I can find. 1.144.104.224 (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- A draft has been created — Draft:2020 Formula One World Championship. It was mostly just the 2019 article carried over, so I've gutted it of the irrelevant stuff. 1.144.104.197 (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The 2020 article has now been created. 1.129.109.14 (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- The F1 2020 redirect needs to be created. 1.144.104.59 (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Done. DH85868993 (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Inclusion of racing cars in Template:Lotus
I've started a discussion regarding the continued inclusion of racing cars in Template:Lotus. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (I've advertised the discussion here because I wasn't sure how may people are watching the template). DH85868993 (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
References proposal
Take a look at Draft:2020 Formula One World Championship and you'll see an alternate way of coding the references (called list-defined references - see WP:LDR). The end result looks the same to the reader, but the coding is less of a mess. Each reference has to be given a name (they often are anyway if they're used more than once) and they are all listed together at the bottom of the code. To use them you just refer to them by their name (as in the 2nd use of one ordinarily). It makes managing and curating the references a whole lot simpler and makes the code a whole lot tidier. I think we should consider adopting this method as we develop new articles. Please take a look, especially inside the code, and see what you think. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Forget it, it was all lost when the draft was partially merged into the new 2020 Formula One World Championship article. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Featured quality source review RFC
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)