WikiProject Formula One | (Rated Project-class) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Superscripts/notes on the race count in 2021 and 2022
@Island92: It seems excessive to have the superscripted notes on "Race XX of 22" in both 2021 and 2022. It may seem important in the present-day editing while these things have only recently changed. But taking a longer perspective, why is it relevant to have it in the individual races' articles? It's probably sufficient to have it mentioned in the seasons' articles, while keeping the counts in the individual GPs articles to what they ultimately are (or "expected to be" while the season is in progress). This would also be consistent with our treatment of FISA-FOCA wars period (otherwise the counts would have to be complicated unnecessarily in individual race articles for those seasons as well). cherkash (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I involve @HumanBodyPiloter5:. He's the user who added first these notes in 2021, providing that I reckon well. Island92 (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Also the 17 Grands Prix in 2020 boxes feature notes, starting from 2020 Austrian Grand Prix. Island92 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with cherkash, how many races were expected to be held at the time is of minimal to no relevance (unless the removal of a race secures someone the championship, because there are no longer enough races in which to close the gap) but that situation has never actually arisen.
In any case, if we insist on including these notes they would be better suited to running prose, where we say "it was the 2nd round of 22 in the 2022 championship.[link footnote saying at the time there were due to be 23]", rather than the infobox. SSSB (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Nationality in infoboxes
All references to nationality in driver infoboxes are now banned, apart from in certain unusual circumstances. Including flags. This is because a handful of editors... I don't know, just thought nationality was meaningless, I suppose. If you think I'm joking, here it is: WP:INFONAT. One or two editors are already trawling around enforcing this. I asked one editor questions about it, and she refused to answer them, just telling me to raise it somewhere else. Isn't Wikipedia great? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- What on Earth. Who decided this was a good idea, and where? Is there a discussion I've missed? Bonkers. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's here. It involved around seven people, and as far as I can see, no WikiProjects were informed. It's easily the most ridiculous idea I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and there's a lot of competition. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think your giving an overly simplistic account of the outcome of the discussion. First of all, MOS is a guideline and cannot ban anything. Secondly, this section of it seems to only deal with the personal information section of infoboxes. It doesn’t for instance override MOSːFLAGS stating that it is acceptable to including the sporting nationality of sportspeople in an infobox.Tvx1 21:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm giving the account that was given to me. Guidelines are there to be followed, and it is pretty clear. It has been relayed to the editor who is removing the nationality field that it does not override MOSFLAG – she says it does, and continues to remove the field. Short of edit warring, it's going to need more organised opposition. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the rogue editor continues to edit in defiance of MOSːFLAGS, they should be reported to the administrators. Pure and simple.Tvx1 21:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- You'll find her reverting me at Peter Revson, Mark Donohue et al. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the rogue editor continues to edit in defiance of MOSːFLAGS, they should be reported to the administrators. Pure and simple.Tvx1 21:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm giving the account that was given to me. Guidelines are there to be followed, and it is pretty clear. It has been relayed to the editor who is removing the nationality field that it does not override MOSFLAG – she says it does, and continues to remove the field. Short of edit warring, it's going to need more organised opposition. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- My personal inclination is to simply ignore it. The discussion, which appears to be very poorly thought out, has introduced a conflict between different sections of the MOS. The quickest resolution is to simply revert the most recent change to INFONAT. A new centralized discussion (that actually involves some people affected by the change) will probably be needed though, and while that is done a significant amount of damage could be done in the mean time. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Alternatively we could rename our parameter "License nationality". 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's not licence nationality. And even if it were, this editor would still claim that their guideline would apply. I would still revert her arguing a something alone the lines of the following:
Firstly, that MOS is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule and we have ever right to use a local, WikiProject specific, consensus. Secondly, we say there is no evidence that this overrides MOS:FLAGS (because it doesn't), thirdly, we point out that the scope of the discussion she keeps mentioning doesn't extend to F1 driver's infoboxes, as sporting nationality wasn't brought up in the discussion at all. And finally, we inform her that she may be brought to WP:AN/3RR if she doesn't stop edit warring. SSSB (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- The issue with that approach is that they did address WikiProject consensus in the discussion by referring to WP:CONLEVEL. They did touch on sports articles in the RfC as well. Any argument that INFONAT or other parts of the MOS are open to the inclusion of representative nationalities is going to be shot down very quickly. I suspect the only two solutions are either for the entirety of WP:F1 to ignore INFONAT given its innapropriate application to sports bios which would force the local consensus to be enforced, or to start a new centralised discussion that inserts a specific allowance for sports bios to include nationalities. 5225C (talk • contributions) 06:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would argue that CONLEVEL is on our side. The consensus used to establish INFONAT was among a much smaller group of editors than the group which agreed MOS:FLAGS. WP:F1's local consensus isn't that INFONAT doesn't apply (the fact that several of us think so is irrelevant, that's not the point of the discussion). Rather the local consensus is that we should follow MOS:FLAGS over MOS:INFONAT, as the two contradict each other. SSSB (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- While sports biographies were indeed adressed in the RFC and the later discussion, neither concluded with a prohibition on sporting nationalities. Thus MOS:FLAGS wasn’t changed and still applies. They don’t even contradict each other. They deal with a different nationality concept. And we still have community consensus on our side. This one rogue editor is just wrong and should simply be reported for the editor instead of being given so much patience.Tvx1 10:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- That
They deal with a different nationality concept
is definitely amibguous. I agree we should ignore any attempts to remove sporting nationalities from infoboxes etc., but in the interest of long-term clarity it would be best to ammend the MOS to deal with this issue explicitly. 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- That
- The issue with that approach is that they did address WikiProject consensus in the discussion by referring to WP:CONLEVEL. They did touch on sports articles in the RfC as well. Any argument that INFONAT or other parts of the MOS are open to the inclusion of representative nationalities is going to be shot down very quickly. I suspect the only two solutions are either for the entirety of WP:F1 to ignore INFONAT given its innapropriate application to sports bios which would force the local consensus to be enforced, or to start a new centralised discussion that inserts a specific allowance for sports bios to include nationalities. 5225C (talk • contributions) 06:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's not licence nationality. And even if it were, this editor would still claim that their guideline would apply. I would still revert her arguing a something alone the lines of the following:
- So were are we with regards to this issue? The rogue editor has apparently weirdly limited their objections to just the article of Damon Hill and invests heavily in a discussion on that talk page only. How are we going to proceed from here.Tvx1 02:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Continued opposition to any innapropriate application of INFONAT to F1 bios. Supposing that fails, a new central discussion to explicitly allow for international representative nationalities. 5225C (talk • contributions) 16:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. As far as I can tell there's a clear consensus within WP:F1, that's all that matters in my opinion. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- If it only were that simple. That will always be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that cannot override MOS. The real issue here is one rogue editor who is acting against MOS.Tvx1 21:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, but WP:IAR can. Anyways. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I prefer not to go about it that way though. I prefer more constructive and colleborative ways. For instance, others could weigh in in the discussion at Talk:Damon Hill? Note that it’s a featured article and we thus need to be careful on how to deal with the issue there.Tvx1 03:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, but WP:IAR can. Anyways. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- If it only were that simple. That will always be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that cannot override MOS. The real issue here is one rogue editor who is acting against MOS.Tvx1 21:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. As far as I can tell there's a clear consensus within WP:F1, that's all that matters in my opinion. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Continued opposition to any innapropriate application of INFONAT to F1 bios. Supposing that fails, a new central discussion to explicitly allow for international representative nationalities. 5225C (talk • contributions) 16:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Result tables wrapper
I just visited the McLaren MCL36 article, and I noticed that the results table there has a div wrapper with some styles:
<div style="overflow-x: auto; margin: 1em 0"> <!--Table here--> </div>
The wrapper above makes the gives a side scrollbar on the bottom. This is a good thing for me personally, I like it because it doesn't cause side scrolling. I'm a translator, so I use two windows side by side all the time, and I just don't like side scrolling. This has some weakness though, as the scrollbar doesn't appear until you scroll all the way to the end of the bottom of the table; so if you want to look at the results to the right you have to scroll down first.
I suggest we implement this wrapper on all (or just in specific cases, like the results of an F1 car) results tables. What do you guys think? Klrfl Talk! 13:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- No objection from me (unless there is some kind of accessibility issue. SSSB (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't encountered the scroll down issue you mention, but the reason I use it is because it works in all circumstances: on wide monitors like mine it disappears, on small monitors it keeps the page the right width, and on mobile it is replaced by the built-in table scrolling. As far as I can tell <div> tags of this kind don't affect accessibility and no one has ever suggested otherwise to me. I would support its implementation on all results tables everywhere in the project. It doesn't seem to carry any downside and makes sure the page loads correctly on screens of all sizes. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
March 711 Redirect Overwrite and Page Creation
Hi. I was thinking of creating a page for the aforementioned Formula One car in the title above. Does anyone think that would be a good idea? I was just about to do so now, but then I saw this message: "Please do not re-create an article at this page or for this car without initiating a discussion at the Wiki F1 Project talk-page, in order to establish that it would satisfy notability and that there is a consensus for a page to exist. Thank you.", and I didn't want to create something and then be yelled at for doing something wrong. So, does anyone think that the page should be created? Or is it not necessary? I guess it would be nice to have as many F1 car articles we can, but if the general consensus between everyone is that it isn't needed, then I'm fine with that. Thoughts and opinions everyone, please? Davism0703 (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I just wanted to add one thing if I could. There's a really good corresponding article on French Wikipedia for the March 711 here: fr:March_711 - It actually uses a really good, nice, neat format, and a lot of the available information could be translated from Italian to English. I'm happy to do that, but I would like everyone's thoughts first. Actually, the German, French and Italian Wikipedias actually have a lot of good motorsports and automotive-focused and related articles that English Wikipedia doesn't have. Just a thought, but I would like everyone's opinions first. Davism0703 (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- The 711 certainly looks like it should be notable, so I don't see any issue with creating an article for it. Content translations don't really need discussion, if we're lacking an article another edition has we should make use of it. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Lights out and away you go translating the article, mate. Klrfl Talk! 12:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you're not confident with French, try Italian, Japanese or Polish. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is many articles about F1 cars on different language versions of Wikipedia but not in ENWP. Eurohunter (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Davism0703: What about linking article to Wikidata? We always add interwiki - then on Wikipedia, now on Wikidata. Eurohunter (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Davism0703: Can you start linking your articles to Wikidata? Eurohunter (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. :) Davism0703 (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Davism0703: Thanks. Eurohunter (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. :) Davism0703 (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Davism0703: Can you start linking your articles to Wikidata? Eurohunter (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
March 87P Overwrite Redirect and Page Creation
Hi Guys, just one more thing. I was thinking of creating an article the aforementioned Formula One car above. There's a lot of good and readily available information on German Wikipedia (German), again, that English Wikipedia doesn't have. I would just like everyone's opinion, and make sure that there's a general consensus between everyone, and that there's a unanimous decision between everyone that this article is necessary and should be create. Again, I'm willing to translate and bring across all the information, it's just I received the same message before as stated above ("Please do not re-create an article at this page or for this car without initiating a discussion at the Wiki F1 Project talk-page, in order to establish that it would satisfy notability and that there is a consensus for a page to exist. Thank you."), and I didn't want to create anything without everyone's honest opinion and decision. What do you think guys? Thanks again. Davism0703 (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Again, it's a notable car for an article. So as long as you have sources, it's lights out and away you go translating,
- mate. Klrfl Talk! 03:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- No it isn't. Not for a standalone article. It was an F3000 car upgraded as a temporary solution. It only entered one race and didn't even start it. I don't know why German Wikipedia has a separate article for it, but we don't have to copy them. Having read their article, I found that 90% of it doesn't even deal with the 87P car. What's worth mentioning about this car, can easily be mentioned as part of another article.Tvx1 11:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW, these redirects with the 'hidden advice' were put in place to discourage a long-term disruptive and not very competent editor from creating sub-standard articles about F1 cars that did not really meet notability guidelines. I.e. there was little in the way of SIGCOV relying mainly on databases for sourcing. Long-term project members will recall the editor concerned; he was eventually blocked indef. (after using over 250 different IPs, which made it impossible to communicate effectively, he did create an account) but several socks later, he still re-appears from time to time. The 871/87P was one that at the time was borderline and could be worth an article. After the recent 'kerfuffle' at WP:NSPORT and the tightening of guidelines, there may still be issues, possibly. Eagleash (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, that car was only entered for one race and didn’t even start it. That’s not even remotely close to the notability treshold. So I oppose creating a separate article gor this. This car’s history can easily be covered within March Engineering.Tvx1 10:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Tvx1: The 87P (F3000) maybe, but for the 871 (the F1 version) see Stats F1 for races. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Eagleash, Davism0703 is asking about an article for the 87P. We already have an article on the 871. I oppose a separate article for the 87P. It's not much different than the Ferrari F2002B or F2004M in reason for existence and the latter two even started races and managed notable results.Tvx1 11:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Tvx1: The 87P (F3000) maybe, but for the 871 (the F1 version) see Stats F1 for races. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Disruptive IP
Over the last few days an IP has been doing many unconstructive edits to the calendars of multiple season articles. This has included test edits and outright vandalism.Tvx1 23:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Mos violation in Template:Infobox F1 driver
See a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_F1_driver#Nationality about fixing a potential MOS violation in the Infobox SSSB (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
GA Nomination
Hi all, I'm sure you're all busy people, but if anyone wants something to do, could they please pick up my GAN at Talk:McLaren MP4-18. Hope this doesn't violate WP:CANVASS, or any other policies. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 20:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)