Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 43

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 43

Proposal for the flag field in F1 infoboxes

This is a long-running issue, but it should be addressed. I've just had an exchange with an editor who was removing these flags, who made some good suggestions with regard to our flag use in infoboxes which might better satisfy WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Although the most recent discussion resulted in overwhelming support for keeping the flags, we could still make some adjustments to make our flag usage clearer. We should not see our large numbers as an opportunity to ride roughshod over any MOS recommendations.

The editor's comment was as follows: "...you don't really want or need to show the person's nationality with a flag appended but want to display their nationality as shown in FIA F1 Super Licence they hold. So my question would be, why not call a spade a spade? Instead of attaching a flagicon to the name of the country of birth, don't call it Nationality but call it what it really is FIA Super Licence nationality with a flagicon and leave the personal details section with place of birth free of the flagicon, as is usual. To me that might even be just about acceptable to the WP:INFOBOXFLAG enforcers. It would be similar to the Allegiance link and flagicon for a military person, such as we see for Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein that uses the template {{Infobox military person}}."

This seems very reasonable to me, so I propose renaming the nationality field as he suggests, and keeping it separate from birthplace / birthdate details. It is an F1 infobox after all. This would clarify the link to FIA Super Licence#Nationality of drivers, which as he rightly points out, is completely unsourced. That really needs to be fixed.

I'm going on a Wikibreak as of tomorrow, but I was hoping you guys would be able to discuss this and maybe come to a conclusion. It's not a big stretch for us, and it would make things clearer for others. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

At first glance I'd rather have Racing licence nationality. The Super Licence has not always been required to race in F1, but I believe a racing licence has always been required to race. Since some drivers don't race with their actual nationality, but their racing licence nationality (Grosjean, Gachot, etc), I think it would still remain accurate. Plus, it can be used outside of F1 infoboxes, though we'd need to visit WP:MOTORSPORT to do that. --Gyaro-Maguus-- 13:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I also would prefer the label to be something more like "Racing licence nationality" - it seems a bit incongruous to have a field labelled "Superlicence nationality" in (for example) Ascari's infobox. But apart from that, I'm happy with the general principle. DH85868993 (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the exact wording can be changed to suit us: I like "Racing licence nationality" or something similar. It's less specific and would certainly make more sense historically, and superlicences are always subject to change anyway, as we've seen lately. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree vehemently. This is NOT how a F1 driver's nationality is determined. Quite in the contrary. Article 9.5.2 of the FIA's International Sporting Code states: " All Drivers, irrespective of the nationality of their Licence, participating in any FIA World Championship Competition, shall retain the nationality of their passport in all official documents, publications and prize-giving ceremonies." Thus drivers with a dual nationality like Grosjean, Nico Rosberg en now Max Verstappen simply chose which country they want to represent. I think renaming the field simply to "Sporting nationality" or "Racing nationality" would be a much more adequate description. Tvx1 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what you're disagreeing with. I'm talking about renaming the field, not changing how we determine nationality or anything like that. Are you just objecting to the world "licence" in the field? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm objecting renaming it to "Racing Licence Nationality", because as result of article 9.5.2. there is a possibility that the racing license nationality does not match the nationality a driver uses in F1. That label does not coverer all possibilities. A prime example of this is André Lotterer. Lotterer is actually a German-Belgian dual national who actually has a Belgian racing licence, but opted to represent Germany under article ISC article 9.5.2. Tvx1 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see in any problem in calling it racing nationality. As far as I am concerned, it quite honestly denotes the same information - the nationality that the driver uses to race. The actual nationality is not relevant, just the nationality that the driver uses, and thus the issue that the person Breton was talking to had. As for the passport point, unless we have references on what nationality passport a driver has, we cannot use that specific definition to fill out the parameter. Rather, we have to use things like this (and this) to define the nationality. As a slight note, one thing I do know about German passports is that if you have a German passport, you cannot have another passport. This is why Lotterer is German and races as a German. On an extra note, there is nothing stopping us from filling the parameter with multiple nationalities, but in the way it is done at Bertrand Gachot and potentially to place both German and Belgian nationalities in Lotterer's infobox. In these situations I would source the information, place a note, or simply write something like "German (FIA) · Belgian (holds licence)" (but with a line break). --Gyaro-Maguus-- 16:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: upon reading German passport, I learn that a German is allowed to hold both a German and an EU or Swiss passport (as a second passport), but not a not non-EU or non-Swiss one. Since Belgium is in the EU, my initial assumption is technically incorrect. What I believe to be the case is that Lotterer is German, not Belgian, because he is German-born and thus German nationality law places that with higher importance. --Gyaro-Maguus-- 16:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Erm, No. German nationality law places those who are born and raised in Germany with a higher priority. However Lotterer was raised with his Belgian mom in Nivelles, Belgium (read the source I provided earlier). Anyways since he was born to a German father and a Belgian mother he received both countries nationalities according to both countries' nationality laws. Anyway his Belgiumness should not be added to his F1 Infobox because, because he never represented Belgium during his F1 racing career (as far as I know of). There should be some mention of it in his article though. Tvx1 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in nationality law, and I didn't read the source. I recall from when I was being taught German in secondary school that a German could only have one passport, the German one, even if they were foreign (in which case they would have to stop using their current one). That was said to the whole class about 6 to 8 years ago, so it is actually quite well remembered on my part. To enhance my point, I read both the passport and nationality law articles and I actually have to assume my final sentence (which I did start with "what I believe"). The information I gleaned about Lotterer was from his WP article, which, as you appear to have seen, literally makes absolutely no mention of his Belgianness. Hence, why I was wrong. --Gyaro-Maguus-- 17:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It's no that important for this discussion anyway. If you want to have a more in-depth discussion about Lotterer's nationality you can always do so on his article's talk page. What I tried to point here was that there are examples were racing licence nationality does not match the nationality used in F1, and that "racing licence nationality" is therefore in inadequate label for the field.

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ OK, I'm up to speed. So are there any objections to "Racing nationality" or further suggestions? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection with either Racing nationality or Sporting nationality. Oh and holding a German passport and a non-EU or non Swiss passport simultaneously is not forbidden, but just restricted. See German nationality law as well.Tvx1 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no difficulty in accepting 2 fields (assuming there are no formatting problems) I.e. Nationality (birth or assumed) and racing licence nationality; BUT to which field would the flagicon then be placed (if at all), presumably the racing licence nationality... or have I missed something here :P. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Like I pointed out, having a racing license nationality field is not a good idea because there are examples, like Lotterer, of F1 Drivers whose nationality in the sport does NOT match their racing licence nationality and because, according to the International Sporting Code, F1 Drivers (as well as drivers who compete in any other FIA World Championship e.g. WRC, WEC, WTCC) retain a passport nationality and not necessarily their racing license nationality. I have no problem however with using more than one nationality field in an infobox. A Nationalit(y)(ies) (legal) field on top and a Racing Nationality field per racing category's section that is included in the infobox. The flags should be used with the Racing nationalities, I think, since these are the flags we will use in our race reports, season reviews, team articles etc. Tvx1 (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I've thought about this and in Breton's quote above, we have that military personnel don't have a nationality field, rather, an allegiance - because that is what is important. Here, we should note the "racing nationality", and not a nationality, as that is what is important. To further my example, I picked a musician, Taylor Swift, who is definitively 100% American, and her nationality is not noted, because it isn't important. Though yes, we can keep the flag. We've fought too hard to give it up now. --Gyaro-Maguus-- 21:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy with "Racing nationality" or "Sporting nationality". Of the two, I have a slight preference for "Racing nationality". DH85868993 (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Eagleash, Yes, the flag would go on the "racing nationality" field, not any regular nationality field, although I don't think a regular nationality field would be necessary under these circumstances - in 99% of cases the two would be the same anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+As point of interest, changing this field has been discussed before. Tvx1 (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Having sifted through many of our drivers articles I noticed there is an important inconsistency in the way the nationality information is included in the info-boxes. Some articles, like the contested Jean-Pierre Beltoise one, show it near the top together with the driver's personal information; while others, like e.g. Sebastian Vettel have it in the Formula One section of their infobox. Should this be made consistent over all the articles? Tvx1 (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel it should be at the top of the box, together with DoB (and death if applicable). All other boxes (F1, bikes, Le Mans etc.) are secondary to this information. Eagleash (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

But that's the whole point - a "Nationality" field at the top of a driver's infobox would seem to describes a driver's "personal" nationality (whatever that means) whereas the "Nationality" field beneath the "Formula One World Championship career" heading specifically indicates the nationality they raced under in Formula One (which is why the word "Nationality" is linked to the Superlicence article). That's why we're discussing changing the label, to make that more obvious. By rights, all F1 drivers should have their (F1/racing) Nationality listed under the "Formula One World Championship career" heading, but in cases where there's already a Nationality field further up the page and it would be the same (e.g. Beltoise), we tend to leave it out to avoid the appearance of duplicate information. One reason for showing the Nationality beneath the banner rather than above is that we always know what country a driver represented in Formula One, but their "personal" nationality is sometimes less clear. Consider:

• Bertrand Gachot - raced in F1 as "Belgian" from 1989-91 and "French" from 1992-95. But what would you display at the top of his infobox as his "personal" nationality?: French? Belgian? Luxembourgian (where he was born)? In a 1991 interview, he said "I am not really one nationality. I feel very much a European."
• Nico Rosberg: Races in F1 as German but holds dual citizenship (German and Finnish)
• Jochen Rindt: Raced in F1 as Austrian but was born in Germany and had German citizenship

Also, on a more practical level:

• if you put "Nationality: British" at the top of any Scottish or Northern Irish driver's infobox, you can guarantee someone will change it to "Scottish" or "Northern Irish" as appropriate in a very short amount of time, and
• a flagicon at the top of an infobox is way more likely to be removed by someone quoting WP:INFOBOXFLAG, than if it is beneath the "Formula One World Championship career" heading.

DH85868993 (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, didn't explain myself very well. All the points raised above are valid, but nationality is important basic information and should be displayed prominently, (if at all that is). I would mention that in the "deaths in" pages, nationality is displayed as "X"-born "Y" where applicable so maybe something along those lines is a possibility? Then racing nationality in sub-boxes, (and the way it's done on Bertrand Gachot's page seems a reasonable solution (if slightly unwieldy at first sight)). UK is a peculiar problem and always has been. I consider myself English first of all but don't have a problem with being thought of as British. British should refer to the whole of the UK otherwise it becomes politicised (and POV). Eagleash (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I also didn't read what you wrote properly - I thought you were proposing moving Nationality from beneath the "Formula One Championship career" heading to the top of the infobox in all cases, which is not what you wrote. I'm open to the idea of having "personal" Nationality at the top of the topmost infobox on the page (i.e. near DOB) for all drivers, and only having (racing) Nationality beneath the "Formula One World Championship career" heading for cases where it is different. However:

• per WP:INFOBOXFLAG, we probably wouldn't be able to have flagicons in the "top" Nationality field (which doesn't worry me personally, but I know some people are attached to them)
• it would be a nontrivial amount of work to update the 800 or so F1 driver articles (but WP:NODEADLINE, etc), and
• we'd have an issue where the F1 infobox is the only infobox on the page (because it doesn't currently support a Nationality field above the "Formula One World Championship" heading), although this could be addressed by converting the F1 infobox into a {{Infobox racing driver}} with an embedded F1 section.

DH85868993 (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm coming round to the idea that the original questioner proposed, I think, together with what is proposed immediately above. The infobox could display date & place of birth but not necessarily nationality. Any anomalies could be quickly explained away in the lead which already usually has nationality details in it. E.g. "X"-born "Y" (assumed nationality) racing driver who raced under a "Z" racing licence...with a field in the F1 infobox for "licence nationality" (or "racing licence nationality"), with the flagicon displayed there (or not) once agreement reached. DH85868993 I'd be willing to help out when I could. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As I have explained twice before, racing licence nationality is NOT the way to go, since there are examples of racing drivers, like André Lotterer, whose racing licence nationality does NOT match the flag they raced under and because the International Sporting Code dictates that F1 drivers (and other FIA World Championships' drivers) retain a passport nationality and NOT their racing licence nationality. Tvx1 (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We could conceivably move the nationality field to the top of the info-boxes as long as we make a clearly distinguished difference from their personal nationalities, for instance by naming the relevant field "Racing nationality" or "Sporting nationality" which is exactly the sort of nationality we are allowed to mention under MOS:SPORTFLAGS.

As for DH85868993 issues with F1 infobox-only articles, surely that can be tackled by editting the template?

P.S. Gachot should have a personal nationality, shouldn't he? Surely he has a legal nationality (i.e. a passport)? Tvx1 (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ I think the second para above is pretty much what has been proposed, should it be agreed that a change is necessary. I.e. separating personal and racing nationalities. As far as Gachot is concerned he could quite legitimately use just the EU passport (I think). Eagleash (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a pure EU passport. Any passport from an EU member state still belongs to that member state and the holder will have that member state's nationality. By the way, he has a French passport! Tvx1 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah OK. I've no idea really: I don't even have a UK passport. & it's all a bit off topic now anyway. Eagleash (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Heaving read through WP:INFOBOXFLAG again, I'm not so sure anymore that the proposed change is going to help us satisfy WP:INFOBOXFLAG more than is already the case. After all the guideline gives "sport nationality" as one of the non-exceptions for including a flag in the infobox. The main situation remains that WP:INFOBOXFLAG is a guideline an not a black and white law we must follow. Everything is written in the normative style using "should" an nothing is forbidden by the guideline. This means that if we have a consensus that it's for the betterment of our articles and indeed our entire project to have ONE flag in our info-boxes, which he have now for quite some years, it is our good right to do so. And to be honest, I don't quite agree with some of the opinion-based assertions that are presented as facts in content of INFOBOXFLAG guideline. Tvx1 (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Reset

I think the above has been a useful discussion. May I suggest that we take a step back and discuss/decide what nationality-related information we think needs to be displayed in a F1 driver's infobox(es), and once that's agreed then return to discussing the location and labelling of the information, what's the best way/how much effort it might take to update any articles and what other issues may arise? I think the first two questions we need to answer are:

1. Should an F1 driver's "personal" nationality (e.g. Räikkönen is "Finnish", Vettel is "German" etc) be displayed in an infobox (as currently occurs for Grand Prix motorcycle racers [1], [2], IndyCar drivers [3], [4], [5], [6] and many other non-F1 racing drivers)?
2. If the nationality under which they raced in Formula One is different to their "personal" nationality, should that also be displayed?

Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Taking Tvx1's good thoughts, this is a tricky one. No matter if drivers have dual citizenship (which by the way since last month is also possible in Germany for non EU citizens: [7]), they will still choose a flag they drive under in Formula One. But they might drive in other categories under a different flag (like Nico Rosberg did, who drove in F3000 under the Finnish one. The regulations of F1 state that you race under your passport nationality. But divers might have 2 or more passports. Here are some thoughts on what we might do:

1. As is now we should have a section above "Formula One World Championship career" with personal information where we put ALL of the drivers legal nationalities.
2. Further down in the F1 part we should put "Raced in F1 for" or something around this line. This should NOT be called "Licence nationality" as we found out that the licence does not dictate which flag you race under in F1. This should only apply if the F1 nationality differs from the legal nationality (so leave it if drivers have single citizenship like Michael Schumacher.
3. In sections about other Formulae or other racing series we might put another nationality info.

For André Lotterer that would mean that under his picture we would have both the German and Belgian flag, but at the bottom F1 section, above "Active years" we would open a new category. For Rosberg that would mean we would have both his citizenships in the personal info, the Finnish one in his F3000 section (there is none yet) and the German one in his F1 section. Contra: There will be a lot of flags in the infoboxes, pro: but they would be correct. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It might look like this for Lotterer. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that works well enough. The link to the nationality section of the FIA Super Licence article works well to give a explanation of why the nationality appears twice. I don't think there is problem linking that to pre-Super Licence nationalities. On the other hand, I'm not too sure about having two nationality fields active in situations where we only have one racing competition in the infobox (such as Rosberg), though I'm pretty sure that if I saw that with my eyes that view may change. --Gyaro-Maguus-- 19:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The point of my original proposal was to remove flags that show ordinary, non-sporting nationality. Hence the two flags there in Lotterer's infobox under his picture should be removed. The German flag would stay for the F1 infobox. Other series would only show the nationality field if a different nationality was used. Per the MOS, we would have no justification for any flag for basic nationality. Repeating flags in a sporting infobox is unjustifiable and would attract even more drive-by removals of flags than we have now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have similar concerns. I fail to see how adding more nationality fields and more flags to the info-boxes is going to result in us having less issues with MOS enforces (note that a guideline actually can't be enforced). The question that was raised is should we rename the nationality field in the F1 Infobox? So should we? Bear in mind that WP:INFOBOXFLAG lists "sport nationality" as a non-exception (something I personally disagree with). Tvx1 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I see this proposal is still lingering around without having produced some results so far. So, I'm going to make a different proposal. What if we rename the contested field to country? That would be similar to for instance how tennis players are dealt with and would simply allow us to put the countr(y)(ies) they represented during their career, while doing away with the more ambiguous term nationality. Any thoughts? Tvx1 13:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 43

Separate Manor F1 article

I would like to propose separating the information of Manor's Formula One participation onto a separate article, the information on Manor's Formula Renault and Formula Three participation should remain on "Manor Motorsport", Virgin Racing and Marussia F1 have their own separate articles even when both those teams were operated by "Manor", also the article will eventually overflow meaning another article is needed. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I wholly agree. Looking at the redirect's history, I see that this was tried before, but re-merged with Manor Motorsports for reasons unknown. Twirlypen (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed also considering the different entities behind each team iteration. Good luck! CtrlXctrlV (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe this article should be titled "Manor Marussia". --Gyaro-Maguus-- 11:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd also support having a separate article for Manor's 2015 F1 activities. I'd be happy with "Manor Marussia" as the title. DH85868993 (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The article could either be titled "Manor F1" or "Manor Marussia" but "Manor F1" seems more suitable for the long term if the team continue into 2016 they will most likely drop "Marussia" from their name but "Manor Marussia" could always be easily changed. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Until such time that they actually do become Manor F1, we cannot call them that as per WP:OR. Manor Marussia is, for now, the only suitable location. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

So is this move going to happen then? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to split the articles. What's the difference between Manor Motorsport and Manor F1? It's the same racing team, and unlike Virgin Racing and Marussia F1 has the same identity and ownership. QueenCake (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The same difference as McLaren Technology Group and McLaren Honda, I guess. Tvx1 21:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Splitting out the 2015 activities would also address the current situation where the table at Manor Motorsport#Results shows Manor as competing in F1 from 2010 to 2015, but Manor Motorsport#Complete Formula One World Championship results only lists 2015, which seems a bit odd to me. DH85868993 (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with Tvx1 on their analogy. MTG is a broadly-based engineering and technology group that owns a racing team. Manor is a racing team that competes in a number of different series. Manor seems more like Equipe Ligier in that sense. Ligier is a simpler case, as so far as I know they never ran a team on behalf of anyone else. Another useful F1 analogy might be made with Tyrrell. The Tyrrell Racing Organisation was established in the late 1950s, but mostly concentrated on lesser formulae until 1968. In that year the team entered Formula One, but not as Tyrrell. For their first two seasons they were Matra International, with Matra works support and funding. Only for the 1970 season, when Matra insisted on their using the V12 engine to maintain the works support, did they break off and race under their own name. Despite these two identities we list all their F1 results under Tyrrell, because that's how the vast majority of reliable sources treat them. As ever, what I'd like to see in these debates are positions established by sources, not by what people here think or feel. I'm not fussed whether the 2015 F1 Manor entries are split out or not, but please could we try and use some evidence-based decision making? Pyrope 22:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see any point in keeping the information together because when Manor Motorsport had intention to enter Formula One in 2009 they created a separate entity called "Manor Grand Prix" which was a spin off company that competed as "Virgin Racing/Marussia Virgin Racing" later "Marussia F1" due to sponsorship and stake holder reasons, the company under the name "Manor Motorsport" which competed in Formula Renault and Formula Three is a separate but connected company to "Manor Grand Prix Racing" which is currently running in Formula One as "Manor Marussia F1 Team" that is one of the biggest and most valid reasons why "Manor Marussia" should be separated and given its own article. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Matra International was a distinct corporate entity from Tyrrell Racing, and similarly World Wide Racing (that ran the Lotus cars in Italy in the early 1970s when ACBC was scared of being arrested over Rindt's death) was distinct from Team Lotus. However, despite what Companies House says, we don't distinguish them here because most reliable sources don't distinguish. As far as how the Manor team themselves regard their continuity, to paraphrase from the History section on their website "Manor has a strong heritage in motor racing - formed in 1990 by John Booth ... Manor secured entry to the highest echelon of motor sport for the start of the 2010 season. In February 2015 ... Manor emerged from administration and is now participating in the 2015 FIA FORMULA 1 World Championship'". That's only their opinion, of course, but it is one line of hard evidence as to the relationship between Manor Motorsport and the F1 entry. Formula1.com gives the history of Manor Marussia as beginning in 2010, when "After lower formulae success, Manor Motorsport join F1 as Virgin" and, following many tribulations and a name change or two, "Undeterred, their determination unabated, they return afresh for 2015". One entity, traced through from Manor Motorsport's initial entry to today's Manor Marussia. Looking at other articles in Autosport and elsewhere, even during the brief period where Manor Grand Prix was under Russian ownership, the F1 outfit was certainly operated as an integral part of the wider Manor edifice, with personnel sharing and coordination occurring between Marussia F1 and the Manor FR2.0 and GP3 teams. In contrast, there are an awful lot of external sources who treat the Manor Marussia team as a continuation of the 2014 Marussia team, using phrases along the lines of "the team will use their 2014 car for the first half of the 2015 season", and similar. That being said, the team is apparently dominantly known simply as "Manor" to all and sundry, so that marks a break. Pyrope 19:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Possibly part of the problem we are having here is an apparent desire on the part of many editors for one, single solution. As the discussion shows, it just 'ain't that simple. How about making the Manor Motorsport page an overview of all Manor's motosport activities, with large sections on their F3, FR2.0, GP3 and GP2 entries, and this year's F1 entry, but also including summary information on the 2010-2014 seasons? We would maintain separate detailed articles on the Virgin and Marussia time periods (linked to using the {{Main}} template) which would each include 'their' race results. The Manor Motorsports article results (or separate page, if and when it is needed) will include all years from 2010 on, but with adequate footnotes and links to provide information on the public face of the team. After all, Virgin was only ever a sponsor, in much the same way that the 1970s Politoys and Iso-Marlboro cars were only ever Frank Williams Racing Cars with different frocks on. Incidentally, Politoys and Iso chassis results are listed at the FWRC page only. Just a thought, and another route to consider that would allow full use of all the viewpoints taken in reliable sources Pyrope 20:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Manor Motorsport article would serve as a central hub article (if my wording makes sense) with all the information on Formula Renault, Formula Three and GP3. Obviously have a overview of the different F1 team identities like we have currently and have it more detailed on the separate team articles "Virgin Racing 2010 season to 2011 season", "Marussia F1 2012 season to 2014 season" and "Manor Marussia 2015 season onwards" Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat that way, yes. Excepting that, so far as I can see with comparison to reliable sources, we have one of two choices for this season's entity: 1) treat is as a continuation of last year's team on last year's page (e.g. numerous press references to them using their 2014 car for the first half of this season, etc.); 2) treat them as a reversion to Manor Motorsport running the team under their own name (e.g. Manor's own press materials) and keep the info contiguous with the lesser formulae data. I don't see much evidence that a wholly free-standing article is justifiable. Pyrope 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It is our good right to create a standalone article for their F1 activities if we think that would make it clearer for our readers. Having separate articles does not automatically mean we claim them to be independent entities. Tvx1 00:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+Having already said that I'd support splitting the 2015 activities out into a separate article, I'd also support their inclusion at Marussia F1, per our general principle of grouping results by chassis make (the 2015 cars are still identified as "Marussias" in the official results). And yes, I'm aware that "one size doesn't necessarily fit all", but I believe this is one of the options open to us in this particular instance. DH85868993 (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A separate article would be preferable for the readers as the "Manor Marussia" team is identified as separate from it's former identity as "Marussia F1", their are many sources referring to the team as just "Manor", similar to the 2010 season when BMW Sauber was identified as just "Sauber" by the team themselves, fans, pundits also including many other sources. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The current cars (MR03B) are still Marussias because that's the team would constructed them. However we don't yet what the actual 2015 car (to be introduced later in the season) will be named, so I'd prefer to wait to make decisions based on chassis makes until they have introduced their actual 2015 car. Tvx1 14:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems like a majority of users want a separate article created and the facts seems to point towards it being a better solution, so should the article be created under the title "Manor Marussia". Speedy Question (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Proposal for mobile tables

In case anyone is interested, I have launched a proposal to change the style of the mobile tables to make them match the desktop skin's tables more in response to a number of readability issues that were reported within this project in recent moths. In case anyone wants to weigh in their opinion for either side of the argument, you can do so here. Thanks, Tvx1 15:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Complaint about Today's Featured Article

Complaint is at Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#Errors_in_the_summary_of_today.27s_or_tomorrow.27s_featured_article, they say the tyres had problems in previous races. Please reply either here or there. - Dank (push to talk) 01:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting, but... Very hard to check for specific topic articles as the search results are chopped up into individual pages by chronology of search, rather than thematic pages, and the bot seems to be entirely incapable of identifying even very obvious mirrors (i.e. even those that actually properly acknowledge the Wikipedia source!) meaning that all of the articles of interest that I found to me were false positives. Lots of "load-page-ctrl-F" for no real benefit. Nice idea, needs work. Pyrope 03:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Austria lap leaders

I notice that {{F1Laps2015}} has not been updated for the Austrian Grand Prix. I'm happy to update the template if someone can provide/point me to the lap leader data. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Does this help? Tvx1 10:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I've found this too. Tvx1 16:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I went on and made the update. Tvx1 16:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Manor/Australian Grand Prix

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Michael Schumacher/1999 British Grand Prix

Discussion has revived over whether Michael Schumacher's result at the 1999 British Grand Prix should be shown as "Ret" or "DNS". You are welcome to add any views you may have on the matter at Talk:Michael Schumacher#Infobox "races". DH85868993 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Car/Driver numbers in driver/team/car results tables

Multiple IP's keep adding car/driver numbers to results tabels in driver, car and team articles. As you can see for instance here or here. I thought the project's convention was not to do that. After all the drivers' names provide enough means to distinguish the results and in a driver article there is certainly no point in having them. So I think we should keep our heads up and revert any of these additions. Tvx1 16:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Sanboxing, part 3

If anyone is interested and wants to comment on it, I'm getting way ahead of myself and sandboxing the 2017 season article here. I believe I've found good Grand Prix references (most of the 2016 ones held up for 2017), and all the drivers as well (all 3 of them). I had liberties with the rule changes, so don't take that part too seriously. Cheers! Twirlypen (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The regulation changes really look interesting. But then again: It is very unlikely it is gonna happen this way. You might wanna add that DRS at any point of the track in FP and Q was already allowed in 2011 and 2012. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hence the reference name "I wish!". But mostly I'm trying to get confirmation of the other information, like the races and drivers. I'm pretty sure all the sources I've used check out. Twirlypen (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

User:Poiuytrewqvtaatv123321

Please watch out for edits by this user to race articles and race reports. He makes senseless edits like this. His talk page indicates that useless edits is all he seems to be doing... Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That edit wasn't even correct. The 2015 Monaco Grand Prix followed the 2015 Spanish Grand Prix, not the 2016 Spanish Grand Prix. Twirlypen (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I will no longer make any edits to the sports, racing, and Olympics sections. The purpose of my edits was to create new pages for future sporting events that may not have not happened yet, and may even be in the next five to ten years or so, but are still being planned for, taking bids for, or are having teams chosen or infrastructure made. But, because Wikipedia does not ordinarily create pages for provisional events, and out of respect for the need for sensical, logical, verifiable, and correct edits, and out of respect for the staff and editors of Wikipedia, and the messages received, I will cease and refrain from such. But I did not do them out of malice or vandalism- it was meant to be a form of advance planning for future event pages. You all may feel free to delete any and all edits that are out of place. Thank you for your corrections and your services to Wikipedia, and have a good day. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Poiuytrewqvtaatv123321 (talk o contribs)

Poiuytrewqvtaatv123321, we have tables at the bottom of each race article, such at the article in question in this discussion, that list each appropriate race before and after the event. I understand what you are attempting to do, but the project discourages having unnecessary redlinks in the prose of the article that would remain there for up to a year. Twirlypen (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand; it is distracting and too early to have it there, and especially with events in the distant future, too many things are unknown and speculative.

It is astonishing to me that a user with almost 1,000 edits still does not bother to sign his comments. For what it's worth: I did not undo your edits because I thought they were out of bad faith. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Baku revisited

Now that we have a provisional calendar for 2016, do we have any more information on the new European Grand Prix? Is its race title "European Grand Prix" or "Baku European Grand Prix"? Do we treat it as a separate article? And while we're at it, how will we represent it in tables--as EUR (Europe), BAK (Baku), AZE (Azerbaijan) or something else like BKE (Baku European)? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

FIA lists it as "Baku", not "European", which would lead me to think we should start a new article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd eliminate AZE right away, since it's in no way referred to as Azerbaijan. I feel like those that participated in a much earlier discussion on the event's talk page would feel that it should be EUR since it's just another running of the European Grand Prix, however I could honestly see a case for any of the remaining three choices you've put forth. Twirlypen (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The FIA does list it as "Baku", but I can't find the original document--all I have seen are reproductions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd hold any decision for now. We don't seem to know anything more concrete as of yet. QueenCake (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

2015 season report prose

Hello all. As I have stated on various talk pages, I intend to rewrite the season report subsections once they are complete, as can be seen in the style of opening rounds which is complete vs middle rounds which is ongoing. However, there has been displeasure even with this method as it may still result in a report that is too long by season's end. For this, I have yet again sandboxed an alternative style, which I invite everyone interested to view here and leave opinions or comments. Again as well, please note that the season is incomplete, so I have taken some liberties with the content. It is merely a demonstration of style that would result in a shorter, broader season coverage. Thanks! Twirlypen (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the sandbox version is way too short to do a season report justice. It does not have to be as detailed as 2012 (a GA), that's what the race reports are for (and I'm doing my best to get all of them to GA), but it can be longer and it should contain some sub-sections. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Three short paragraphs is of course too short, but the idea was to convey an alternative option at style of prose. I proposed the 2012 method of season reporting via my original sandbox and it was largely rejected, which I am fine with, despite a certain assertation that I cannot be reasoned with or have no ability to compromise. The overall big picture here is to tackle these issues now instead of later when the content is already written and established. I truly believe that being proactive, despite some lengthy discussions over what amounts to nothing, has made this season's article unfold a lot nicer than previous seasons. Twirlypen (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Homogenization of Season reports

Hey everybody, I believe we are on our way to another brilliant season report with 2015 Formula One season, which I believe will be an easy FA candidate once the season is over. However, that is not true for many other season reports. What is most striking is that there does not seem to be a consensus over the order of sections. For instance, as early as 2011, the report comes before the signed teams and drivers, which I believe is a confusing order compared to what we do now. Maybe we can set up a team to go through all season articles and homogenize the section orders. Maybe one editor for each decade? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

For the most part, organization can be fixed with an easy copy & paste, just as I have done with the 2011 example. Content, however, would take some significant time to clean up. 2011 is a loooooooooooooooooooooong read. Twirlypen (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I know it's simple, but since it's a dull task, I didn't want to do them all on my own :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I did 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 now. Pretty much every article had its own distinct order... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want to finish the 2000s, I'll tackle the 90s. Twirlypen (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and Zwerg Nase, if you do, be sure to delete the safety car model info buried in the article. There's an overwhelming concensus against having that info in the article as the model of safety car has nothing to do with the season. Twirlypen (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

To be blunt, I don't think that it's "an easy FA". After having a glance through, I think it's a little uneven and inconsistent in places. It's very episodic, which is understandable, given that it is updated race by race. I'll have a closer look and see if I can tune it up a little bit. My biggest concern is that there is a bit of colloquialism used--for example, "Mercedes hit the ground running"--and that will be picked up in the GA review process (an article needs to be GA before it can begin FA). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The prose will be tuned up. As stated on the article's talk page, the subsections of the championship are being written as they unfold, and then condensed in a more direct, summary fashion like the Opening rounds are in leiu of the round-by-round format once the section's events are complete. It keeps the important facts fresh, and avoids the simplistic "Team A did this in round one, then this in round two, then this in round three..." for 10 or 11 paragraphs, basically spelling out the results table for however many teams there are the previous few seasons. And I think Zwerg Nase meant that it is closer to GA/FA than previous season articles because we have been working on it since the beginning to keep the minor things out of the way, like overlinking and adding photos promptly. Twirlypen (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I also didn't mean to say it's FA quality now, but that from where we are, it will be quite easy to get there. I will do the rest of the 2000s. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+Does anyone keep track of what has been done already? I'll tackle the eighties if you want that. Tvx1 11:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be perfect :) I see Twirlypen is already through with the 90s. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

2000s are done. I also fixed a lot of headers to make them consistent. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Okay, I have done the 80s now. To keep track of what remains to be done, here is a list of all the decades. Tvx1 23:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

2010s Y

2000s Y

90s Y

80s Y

70s Y

60s

50s

40s

30s

20s

10s

00s

Oh and Twirlypen, while doing the eighthies, I'm came across the 1982 Formula One season which might be an interesting source of inspiration for report subsection headings for you. Tvx1 23:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting.... Renaming the headings is always a possibility once the season is over and the the article has a relatively finite conclusion. Twirlypen (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I would opt for more neutral and encyclopedic headings to be honest... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Having read the 2015 report as promised, I can honestly say that the best thing for it would be to tear it up at the roots and start over. Bretonbanquet (or was that Falcadore--it was definitely one of them, maybe both) is right: it's too long and it's far too detailed. We're halfway through the season and it's already longer than what I would expect the final version to be. It's uneven, inconsistent and lacks cohesion--the first point is that Hamilton chose the number 44 over number 1, and there is a massive section on van der Garde which goes nowhere. There was nothing wrong with the old system, which was very structured and straightforward. This reads like a series of detailed recaps for people who missed the race. No doubt there is content in there that can be salvaged, but given that most of it seems to have been written with the idea that "if it happened, it's relevant", a total refresh would be best. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If by "massive section," you mean one paragraph regarding VDG (and Sauber, and their trial that lasted into the actual Grand Prix and caused the team to skip practice 1 under threat of asset seizure), then yes, that's really massive. I know how it is now isn't perfect, but to call how it was any better, is comical at best. "Mercedes finished first and third here. They finished first and second here. In the third round, Rosberg beat Hamilton..." and repeat eleven times. It's basically a word-for-word read-out of the results table. We could literally record someone reading the table, and it would sound 90% like the prose. Also, you needn't mention the 2015 prose quality in nearly every unrelated discussion thread when there's already an existing discussion on this very page. Twirlypen (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Jules Bianchi's death nominated for WP Main Page: In the News

Anyone interested in voicing support or opposition may do so here.

RIP Jules Bianchi 1989-2015. A truly dark day for Formula One. Twirlypen (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for nomination. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Submission has been added to English WP Main Page. Twirlypen (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

The simplest driver table

I'm going to take this opportunity to spin off a tangent to the above discussion and run with an idea put forward by Bretonbanquet--namely, that team and driver tables are too complex. After looking at the F1 season articles and season articles for other championships, I started wondering: what is the simplest version that we can have?

The table has the current functions:

1. Team name
2. Constructor name
3. Chassis
4. Engine name
5. Tyre supplier
6. Driver number
7. Driver name
8. Rounds
9. FP1 driver number
10. FP1 driver name

That's ten different things that the table does. Do we really need all of them? Assume for the moment that we have to rebuild the table from scratch--what do we keep? What do we let go?

Casting a really critical eye over it, I think we could reasonably cut the following:

1. Team name--this column does not really serve any purpose but to give the full team name and sponsors. The information contained is doubled up elsewhere, and we have previously made the case for removing formal titles from the calendar table.
2. Engine name--we know the name of the engine supplier from the constructor column. The exact name of the engine doesn't really have any bearing on the article, since the modern rules demand that all teams run the same engine model, with very few exceptions. This information would be better suited to the car/engine manufacturer articles.
3. Tyre supplier--the most recent version of the rules have a single tyre supplier. In years with multiple suppliers, this column would be necessary.
4. Rounds--ignoring verisimilitude for the moment, this functionality could be performed by prose and the results matrices. If removed, mid-season changes would need some kind of visual representation in the table.
5. FP1 driver number and FP1 driver name--assuming for the moment that some of the other columns get cut, it gets harder to justify keeping these two around.

And so this:

Instead becomes this:

Thoughts? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no problems whatsoever with the content of the current driver tables. My big issue is still the fact that the new sort of table used in all F1 articles is crap (since they're not working in Firefox), but no one chips in to that discussion... Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a bit of an overreaction to a difficult discussion. The table has worked for years and years without hardly any complaints, so I don't see why we should cut it up that drastically. Although the team name looks to be redundant and the tyre column is not really necessary when there is a sole supplier. But that's all we could sensibly drop. Zwerg Nase, I have filed a phabricator ticket for the table issue. The link is in the section on this matter. They are working on it, so we should be patient now. Tvx1 15:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Two comments on this: 1) I am sure the sponsors would disagree that the name in redundant. 2) and more importantly: While the name might be less important today, it was been very much so in earlier years. And since we should aim for consistency, we should have a table that can be used effectively for all seasons. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair points. Tvx1 15:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It would appear more than a little silly that the most prestigious FIA-sanctioned open-wheel series articles would use the simplest table. If there's anything that needs chopped, it'd be the FP drivers, but at the moment I see no reason against it. Twirlypen (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It's repetition that I have the biggest issue with, and since this is the first table in the article, repetition is not a major issue with it. I am abivalent about sponsor names; I agree with Tvx1 about the tyre column - for seasons with only one tyre supplier, a tyre column is redundant; and I would agree with Twirlypen's idea that the FP1 drivers could be moved elsewhere. A short paragraph of text would probably do, or a very simple, small separate table which only included those teams that use third drivers. Since there are never more than a small number of these guys, and a large part of that column is usually empty, I think that column could be dispensed with. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly say there are never more than a small number of FP1 drivers. There were 13 of them last year, 11 of them in 2011, 14 of them in 2006 and 13 of them in 2005 to name a few. That's clearly more than a small number. Tvx1 19:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ So remove them from the table and put them in a prose paragraph under the driver changes section.

Still not convinced that the tyre icon is necessary for years were there is one tyre supplier. Likewise the engine name--we know who the engine supplier is and there are no pages for those engines, so that would be better suited to the individual car and engine supplier articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the tyre column from the 2015 season article, and moved the FP1 drivers to a prose format. Thoughts?

I am absolutely against having seperate tables for different seasons. They should all be as alike as possible. Therefore I say leave the tyres in there. FP can go elsewhere if need be. But engine needs to stay there! There are articles for some engines and also apart from that it's a vital information, considering how much the speed of the cars depends on engine power. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

PM, despite my recent edits, I believe you're jumping the gun a little here. For my own opinion on the matter, I stated that if anything should go, it should be the FP drivers, but at the moment I see no reason against it. Others have made similar statements without definitively expressing desire for anything to be removed. Tvx1 is making a case for the FP column to remain, as while it may not be a fulfilled column as of yet this season, it has served a purpose in quite a few previous seasons. Zwerg Nase has expressed desire for the table to remain unchanged for the sake of consistancy (an opinion I would side with, if forced to pick). So right now, there is hardly any concensus to change anything right now and the discussion is still relatively fresh. Before I am accused of doing the same thing during the previous discussion, understand that I made my edits after a very long while once it was clear there was a stalemate on a solution. Twirlypen (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not an edit based on CONSENSUS, but on BEBOLD. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a stretch too, considering you started a discussion about it first, presumably with the intent to gain concensus. But I'm not in the mood to argue technicalities. Twirlypen (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I have revised the edits. If you genuinely want to invoke BOLD, you would have done so before ever starting a discussion about it. But you already know there has been a long-standing concensus regarding the table layout. So invoking BOLD is just nonsense. But if BOLD is what you want to push the back of your edits on, consult the second paragraph of that. Twirlypen (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You have two choices: you can stop the ad hominem attacks and contribute, or you can excuse yourself from the discussion until you learn some manners. You have repeatedly and consistently failed to assume good faith in my edits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

First off, I have disagreed with many an editor in my time here, probably nearly every regular at one point or another. How is it you that I am the only one unable to find decency with? Second, Dad, don't think that you can send me to my room just because I disagree with how you conduct yourself with your hasty edits. Third, there's a saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Well, we have been fooled four times already. I'm astonished you're allowed back at all, but that is simply a personal opinion. What's that thing about trust? Easy to lose, hard to earn back? Anyway my good faith towards you is a little shaken over the past 8 or 9 months.

I have not and will not revert any edits that aren't pushing a prefered version of an article; something I did NOT do in the previous discussion - as stated earlier, my edits were a COMPROMISE and not a version I directly pushed for by starting a discussion on the matter. You want to remove references that are outdated or superceded by new sources? Fine, be my guest. Want to add legitimate content away from an active discussion you haven't directly started. Hey man, not my article. Go right ahead. Start a discussion with the seemingly sole intention of altering an established concensus without any real new opinions on the matter other than the first sign of a "hmmm, perhaps?" Then yeah, I'll revert that if no one else will. Twirlypen (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

One rule for me, and one rule for you. You happily insist that I should find a consensus before making edits, but you will make edits and insist on keeping them in place before achieving a consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

By all means, let's hear how I tried to add the footnotes/legend to the table as a COMPROMISE to a discussion that was at a stalemate. I sound like a broken record - how many times do I have to explain the difference over and over? By the way, you were only okay with the addition of that once YOU added it. But go ahead and twist it around like you were against it's inclusion in any way and I forced it on everyone when you were ONLY against it due to the specific template causing functionality issues. Anyway, I'm not going to get goated into yet another useless discussion about civility with someone that's been banned for over 5 out of the last 9 months. This project was at peace and worked great together until literally 2 hours after your latest ban expired. Twirlypen (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+The fact of the matter is: There has been no editwarring while Prisonermonkeys was blocked. There is a lot now. It is preposterous to put any blame on Twirlypen for this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You seem to think that can bring up my block history as a means of marginalising my contributions regardless of what those contributions are. That's an ad hominem attack if ever there was one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Call it whatever you want. You want to invoke BOLD after the fact during a discussion in which you started as a direct result of failing to get people to see things your way in a previous discussion, and then lay the honus on everyone else to prove you wrong. Don't act like this is the first time you've done this. I've never seen anyone so unwilling to accept concensus when it's not in their favor or preferred way of thinking or having things displayed. Twirlypen (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't give you the right to disregard AGF because it suits you. I've never met anyone who assumes page stability equals a quality article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not just about one article, this is about consistency in the entire project. We should work hard to find one sort of table (both content and technic-wise) that can be used in all articles. What you are doing is searching for a good table for one article that technically suits not everyone but your preferred way of display, which is obviously mobile devices. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Dragging things out so that talk pages push over 200,000 bytes and a single discussion needs multiple subsections just to keep track of everything when things aren't going your way. Ridiculous. But no, there's no chance of any coincidences happening here......... Also, I'm pretty sure I AGF'd when I immediately pointed you to these discussions and, despite previous quarrels, made contributing edits to this very issue because I assumed a new concensus had been formed. Lest I find out upon coming here that literally everyone had a different opinion and new concensus was absolutely nowhere to be found, which is, by definition, the very opposite time to invoke BOLD. So please stop lecturing me about good faith. Twirlypen (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ So I should just leave well enough alone because it will keep people happy?

That seems like a terrible idea. Because if I leave well enough alone, the quality of the articles will nosedive. How do I know this? Because I did go back and read the season review for 2015. And while I tried to be diplomatic about it, I think it's time to be blunt: it's bad. Bad enough that there are some sections that should be rewritten, if not scrapped outright. It's simplistic, disjointed and reads like fancruft at times. For some reason, you seem to think that it can achieve FA status, but I think you will be severely disappointed. So given the consistently poor quality of the decisions made here, how can I trust the editors making them to apply any other standard in their decision making elsewhere in the article? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion seems to be that you know better and you, and only you, can fix everything. Well, you can't. Feel free to suggest alternative prose. But stop messing with the layout without reaching a consensus first. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Why would I bother helping someone who clearly doesn't want it? Not worth my time or energy. As far as I'm concerned, you're on your own in that regard. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you all need to stop this. The three of you could quite easily have been blocked for personal attacks. This leads to absolutely nothing. I stand by original comment that this proposal was born out of overreaction to a difficult discussion higher up on this page. I only said that if something really could be cut what I think it was. Nevertheless I prefer not to cut anything at all. No edits should be made (yet) based on the reactions. This is a change that possibly affects over 100 years worth of season articles. We no to give the project's members much more than 22 hours to allow them to weigh in their opinions what, if anyting at all, should be removed. There is a reason why RFC's have a minimum length of 30 days. The reason why oppose to any changes lies in these decades worth of articles. Even though not everything seems necessary for 2015 season article, all part are necessary on a multitude of articles. I especially realized this when I recently homogenized our season articles on the eighties' season. Many of these articles contain teams using different engine types, tires, chassis, heck... some even used different constructors. All of these columns clearly have their value. And even the 2015 season article provides a strong argument against removing engine type names, since two different types of the Ferrari Power Unit are currently being used. By the way, all our season articles up to the 2000's label the first column as "Entrant". Later it suddenly becomes "Team". Shouldn't we make it all consistently "Entrant". Tvx1 15:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Given my recent contretemps with Tvx1, it's odd that I now find myself agreeing with him. There's no mileage whatsoever in bashing each other. I know Tvx1 has felt that I was bashing him in the past, but I am really only interested in the articles. We really should concentrate on them. There's plenty of time for people to have their say on the table, and all this argument will only serve to put other people off reading it and commenting. Certainly no benefit in diving in and changing the article so fast.

On the point, I'm OK with removing tyre columns for seasons that only had one tyre supplier, as I don't think the range of season articles needs to be exactly the same format across the board. A few minor differences like this don't matter too much, in my opinion. That said, if consensus is to keep things as they are, fine. I agree with Tvx1 about the first column being labelled "Entrant" and I also take his point (way) above about there sometimes being quite a few FP1 drivers. I'd still prefer a separate table or text for them though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's bad. It's, another thing I've had to repeat four or five times, incomplete. Every other editors seems to understand and get this, because I've invited all of them to participate and edit whatever I add. But I get it, eye for an eye, I go after you for editing before concensus is reached on this issue in this discussion, you go after me for something completely unrelated that hasn't even been a problem for anyone. I'm fine with that though. As for the topic at hand, I too am in favor of not altering the table, aside from the minor label issues of Team to Entrant. Twirlypen (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree on that. Let's keep the tables consistent. Maybe the people who edited the season reports for section order can also change their respective reports for the "Entrants" name? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

See? We all have editors we simply just bash heads with at times more than others it seems... I've cooled off and am ready to start the day anew. I'm afraid the previous discussion that spawned this one isn't quite settled yet, though, and to be fair to both separate issues, I don't think it'd be wise to discuss both simultaneously. Twirlypen (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, that would be you then since you did the 2000s and they started being labeled team from 2005 or 2006. I'll do a check on the 80's but it though they all had entrant already. Tvx1 10:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

All of the 90s are correct. Side note, I'm thinking we should keep the tyres, even if there is a sole supplier for certain seasons. It shows that there was a sole supplier, and a casual reader wouldn't think to assume that if they see a tyre supplier column for one season and not another. Unless, of course, it's mentioned somewhere in the regulation changes or a footnote at the end of the table...... which there are for towards the end of the 90s tables stating what configuration all of the engines were. Twirlypen (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll go through the 2000s! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done 2001-2015 Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done 2016 Tvx1 11:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Jules Bianchi's article

With Jules Bianchi sadly passing way I think it is time to take a look at his article in view of making a considerable cleanup. IMHO, the detailed dairy of updates on his medical condition is a bit too excessive. Similarly I question whether it is necessary to have such a large amount of prose on the FIA's reaction and the accident panel's fidings. Lastly, I'd think the section on his 2014 season exploits before the Japanese Grand Prix might do with a bit of expansion. It's hardly noticeable at the moment. Any thoughts? Tvx1 09:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The updates (mainly mine) could be cleaned up but not FIA's reaction and findings that followed. They gained a lot of attention and caused some controversy, as in the case of Senna, plus resulted in revised safety measures that would have not arisen but for those findings and reaction. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but is this article the correct place to go in so much detail about that? How did that affect Bianchi's life and career? Wouldn't that be better suited for say... the article on the GP in question? Tvx1 10:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The medical updates are a bit drawn out, considering that there was no real change in condition. But I agree that the FIA investigation and findings are rightly detailed. The entire situation may be deserving of it's own article, but that's just my opinion if we can't agree on what content should and shouldn't remain. Twirlypen (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Short of the status quo, the same FIA material in another appropriate article (its own I'd say, much like Senna has a separate one; I wouldn't favour just adding it to 2014 Japanese GP) could work, cross referenced in Jules' biography article. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Not to take anything away from the situation, but I'd also be hesitant to fully support a standalone article. Senna was a three-time world champion; Bianchi was a rising star who had 2 career points, and has the unfortunate distinction of being "the next guy..." and nine months worth of coverage preceding his death. Twirlypen (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair comment. Maybe an F1 article on monumental events in the sport BUT... I am sure that would attract a lot of superfluous stuff. My preference remains for leaving the info in Jules' article then. Everything mentioned arose because of his unfortunate crash. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ (edit conflict)Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we remove the sections on the FIA's post-crash activities entirely. I'm suggesting it's trimmed down considerably to what's actually relevant to Bianchi, which is that an accident panel was formed and which findings it made. I mean how relevant is it really to Jules Bianchi when and where they convened, who was in the panel, that a unused proposal was made to airlift stricken F1 cars, how many pages the report contained and so on? Tvx1 11:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The accident review panel and medical updates sections are far too long. They could easily be trimmed down without compromising the article. If anything, a more concise version will be much better. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem Tvx1 and all, sounds quite sound and constructive. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I just took 3,000kB out of the review panel section alone. Most of it was better-suited to the 2015 season article, anyway. I'll look at the medical updates later. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I had a go at the medical updates. The team's commemorative gestures have been cut back and moved under "Team reaction". CtrlXctrlV (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Just cut another ~5,000kB from the team reaction and medical updates. There was a lot of stuff in there that was very long-winded and quite superfluous at times, and the medical updates section read less like an encyclopaedia article and more like a rolling series of updates and broke NOTNEWS. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Petronas engine links

Are there any objections to me updating all references to "Petronas" engines (i.e. Sauber's engines from 1997-2005) to point to Sauber Petronas Engineering instead of Petronas (noting that the links from several articles already point there)? DH85868993 (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Not from me. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Not from me either. I actually changed one of these links myself yesterday. I would suggest to use AWB though, because you're looking at updating every season and Grand Prix report article from 1997 until 2005. Tvx1 14:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tvx1: It was your edit that brought the issue to my attention. I am definitely planning to use AWB. If there are no objections within the next 12 hours, I'll make the updates then. DH85868993 (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. DH85868993 (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

"Manor" MR03B

Hello everyone. I have kind of spearheaded an issue which may or may not have precedence (because I don't know). Anyway, for 2015, we have been refering to Manor's car as the Manor MR03B, when it is simply a derivative of the car that Marussia built with a couple bolt-ons. In pedestrian terms, we don't buy a Ford Focus, personalize it with our own front splitter, exhaust, and what not and then call it a Douglas Focus, right? It's still a Ford Focus, built by Ford, no matter what we do to it. Wouldn't the same apply to professional motorsports? Marussia may be defunct, but the MR03 is still something they built. Am I making sense with this? Twirlypen (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You are, a little bit. But in this case, it is not the way you describe in your example. It's rather: Ford builts a Focus, then Ford goes bankrupt, then a company is founded that is the legal successor of Ford and they built a new Focus and call it the XYZ Focus. Which also makes sense. It is quite different from back in the 60s and 70s, when small teams bought chassis from other teams. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Except Manor did not build a new MR03. They slapped a few parts on Marussia's model to make it 2015-legal. Heck, they didn't even put a new engine in it. Using your example, Ford goes bankrupt, XYZ succeeds them and states "we are using Ford's Focus with some modifications because our own chassis is nowhere near ready." Twirlypen (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

And it will be different when Dallara builds the chassis for Haas F1, because Dallara is in agreement with Haas to build the chassis under the Haas name, like they did for Hispania Racing in 2010. Such an agreement with Dallara does not exist between them and Indycar. The Indycar chassis are marketed as the Dallara DW12. I know one company is defunct, and the other isn't, so it's apples and oranges... I don't know. Twirlypen (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

But Marussia and Manor are not different companies like Haas and Dallara. One is the legal successor of the other. That's the whole point of the team, that is why they get Marussia's money... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Marussia's money is the only reason Manor entered using their name. But that's not my point. My point is that it's not Manor's chassis. Manor hasn't built any chassis yet. They've openly said they are using Marussia's 2014 car that meets 2015 minimum safety standards (B-spec). If they had said otherwise, I wouldn't have a case. Twirlypen (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Your analogy doesn't hold up though, I can think of quite a few examples of consumer cars receiving a new name upon being modified by a third party. One even from Ford you have mentioned. Ford builds a car named the Ford Mustang. A certain mr. Shelby acquires some of these vehicles, modifies them somewhat and the result is... the Shelby Mustang. Another such example is say the BMW 7 series and the Alpina B7. There even are examples of this in Formula One. For instance the Arrows A23 and the Super Aguri SA05 or the Honda RA106 and the Super Aguri SA07. Anyway, we don't decide ourselves what the chassis name should be. We reflect what the reliable sources say it is. Our 2015 season article state that the team's constructor name is Marussia, so that seems to be a strong indication as to what it should be named. Tvx1 13:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't a compromise be Manor Marussia MR03B? The Renault > Lotus F1 team transition may help (I can't recall what their cars were called during this period). CtrlXctrlV (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It was called the Renault R31, even though the team was renamed Lotus Renault F1. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand BMW Sauber constructed a Sauber C29 for the 2010 season, so it doesn't always happen the same way. Tvx1 13:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something. The teams are listed by F1 under the factory name, so if the chassis is owned by Manor, whether Manor actually built the thing this year or not, it's run as a Manor, isn't it? That may not have applied when Cooper was selling chassis, IDK; as I recall, they were run under the team name, then (& I wasn't a big enough fan to know if they were entered as Coopers or not). So, does it make any difference if this chassis was built by Manor or not, since the actual builder is gone & Manor owns what's left? Didn't this also apply to the Brawns? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

That's indeed how things go.Tvx1 16:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This isn't any different to the Spyker F8-VII, which became known as the Force India VJM01 the next year when the team came under new ownership. It was the same car, but had two different names. There is no reason we can't call this year's car the Manor MR03B. QueenCake (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Or the above Super Aguri examples I mentioned. Tvx1 19:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, though I was going with an example that was all covered with the same article. QueenCake (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Interesting and compelling points on the Spyker/Force India and Honda/Super Aguri examples. I'm sorry for raising such a rather mundane point, and not knowing these precedents beforehand. Twirlypen (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries. If we don't discuss it, we can't know what to do in each situation. :) QueenCake (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Do we call a Vauxhall Monaro sold in the UK a Holden because Holden built it? I mean, all Vauxhall did was put some badges on the car and maybe made some tweaks to the user interface of the software. Maybe some different tyres. Alter the air conditioning, but it's still a Holden yeah? So all reference to Vauxhall should be removed.

WP:COMMONNAME suggests it should be Manor. --Falcadore (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, what of the case of Reynard 02S? DBA4 03S, Zytek 04S, Zytek 05S, Zytek 06S and Creation CA06/H are ALL variations of the Reynard 02S. Are you going to rename them too?

You do know, don't you, that there is no such thing as a Marussia MR03B, and one of the principal foundations of wikipedia is we never make stuff up ourselves. For any reason. --Falcadore (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I think Twirlypen had obviously admitted their mistake in their reasoning. Anyway, such a claim of the commonname is what desperately needs some sources to show that. It strikes me that in a discussion about what the name of a car is, not a single source has been supplied to, you know, show what the car is actually called. And interestingly enough, the first source I consult refers to it as the MR04. And why did CtrlXctrlV change the Marussia MR03 while this discussion is still ongoing? That is NOT constructive. Tvx1 15:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Instead of reprimanding, "View history" and you will see someone else made changes that compromised the article even more. My revisions were to reflect the discussion here, and preceded most of what has since followed, Tvx1. And for once, I side with Falcadore - i.e. more logical that the MR03B be named a Manor or, as I proposed above, "Manor Marussia" as a valid compromise given the present lack of uncertainty. This renowned scale modeller (Spark) does so CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That was a little overzealous. The discussion was clearly over before you made your last comment. Manor themselves refer to the car as the MR03B; presumably the media guide was created in the pre-season uncertainty over the team. QueenCake (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That FIA document is interesting. Can someone actually provide a source from Manor about the car's name? Cause the Manor website doesn't give one. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Neither of the sources given in 2015 Formula One season give MR03B as the name. I am starting to think we got it all wrong all this time... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have now tweeted the team and just asked them ;) Let's see if they reply. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase we can compare notes... I just emailed their PR manager :) CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that that media guide contains the results of every race this season prior to the British GP, I strongly doubt it was made before the season. Anyway, we're discussing whether this car is called Marussia, Manor or Manor Marussia and I don't think that is over at all. I still haven't seen any source regarding those names and we have to reflect the sources. We can't give it our own name.

Zwerg Nase, the Marussia Manor source in 2015 Formula One season does refer to it as MR03B. And here and here] are more instances of Marussia Manor referring to it as the MR03B.

CtrlXctrlV, we don't follow logic, we follow what the sources say. Tvx1 16:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Duly noted! CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right, for some reason the search function didn't show that... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ I posted on the talk page regarding the Manor/Marussia/Manor Marussia confusion regarding this 2015 season. Twirlypen (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You know, if different names are actively used to refer to it in the sources, we should seriously consider reflecting that in the article like how it's often done with films. Tvx1 17:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Such as "the team re-emerged as Manor Marussia, often referred to simply as Manor, for the 2015 season."? I don't see how that would be unreasonable if we have credible sources referring to both names. Twirlypen (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Well boys, got a reply from the Manor PR Director, Tracy Novak, and... I was wrong both with my preference for Manor or my Marussia Manor compromise. The team calls the car Marussia MR03B - see email correspondence here (just click to download the PDF; they are short of money and words, it seems, but at least she replied relatively quickly). The latest version of the article as it now stands, I feel, does not warrant any further changes after I attempted to neutralise this issue by not making any express reference to the different possible names. Zwerg Nase sorry for beating you with the answer, good ole email has trumped twitter :P I wonder if the team will now monitor our articles... CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

So wait, does this mean it IS the Marussia MR03B, not the Manor MR03B? Twirlypen (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I would imagine so--the car was homologated as a Marussia. It's an evolution of the MR03, but not a completely different car. The planned (but now apparently shelved) 2015 car would have been considered to be a new car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, here is another source that literally states the name of the chassis is Marussia. Tvx1 17:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

San Marino Grand Prix flag issue

Why season articles use the flag of San Marino but the Grand Prix articles use the flag of Italy (see for example: 1993 Formula One season#Season review & 1993 San Marino Grand Prix)? Shouldn't there be consistency in the use of flags? And isn't the flag of Italy the correct one, since the grand prix is only held _near_ San Marino. --Mika1h (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Since per MOS:FLAGS, putting a flag of one country next to the name of another country is a very bad idea, IMHO there should be no flag at all in the individual Grand Prix articles.Tvx1 00:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

We use the flag of the host nation, which is Italy. Someone has obviously changed some of the articles and created this inconsistency. QueenCake (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Just like we use the flag for United Arab Emirates for the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, not the flag for the city Abu Dhabi . There have also been cases of national Grands Prix being hosted outside of their namesake, such as the 1997 and 1998 Luxembourg Grands Prix, each of which were held in and carry the German flag on their individual race report articles. However, the actual event article, the Luxembourg Grand Prix, carries the home flag - just as the San Marino Grand Prix article carries theirs. Twirlypen (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Which, the San Marino Grand Prix article really should have, by the way. Twirlypen (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, I believe the consensus was to have flags next to the locations to make their usage more common sense, not to the name of the race. Hence San Marino Grand Prix should have no flag while Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari, Imola, Italy should have the Italian flag. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The reason the Luxembourg Grand Prix has the flag of Luxembourg is, unlike San Marino, Luxembourg has hosted the race theselves in the past at the Findel street circuit. Indeed most of the LGPs history was at Findel.

San Marino has no such claim and deserves to be treated no differently than the Grands Prix of Rome, Syracuse, Bari, San Remo, Pescara, Naples, Messina etc --Falcadore (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Good points. I've redacted that part of my statement then. Twirlypen (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Save for the fact that the Automobile Club of San Marino organized those races. Tvx1 15:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

UAE and Abu Dhabi is not comparable to Italy and San Marino, because San Marino is not part of Italy. San Marino is an independent country. IMHO, the San Marino GP shall have the flag of San Marino but the Imola race track should have the Italian flag. If then both flags are used (in different parts of the article), so what? It only makes things clearer. 83.251.77.222 (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

San Marino is an independent state is it not? Like Monaco. Therefore is should have the San Marino flag. CDRL102 (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm they are. Have visited both of them. And the tracks that host their Grands Prix as well. Tvx1 19:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Rossi in 2014 standings

I feel Rossi should be excluded from the 2014 standings as no where that I can see has him listed. Even the official FIA website - http://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2014/2014-classifications - does not have him placed. CDRL102 (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't place him either. We list him as unclassified (without a position). That's is not contradictory to the sources. The discussion that resulted in consensus to include him is here. Tvx1 16:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

He was entered for, present at for scrutineering, and subsequently replaced/withdrawn from both events after they had technically commenced on Thursday. He should stay as unclassified with his TD/WD boxes. Twirlypen (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

2010 Korean GP - PR

I've opened a peer review for the 2010 Korean Grand Prix which can be found here. I intend that the article be brought to FAC in the near future and I welcome all feedback on how it can be improved. Z105space (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Really? I'm the only one with any input whatsoever? Twirlypen (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Renault "factory" team status

This issue has been brought up many times but it needs addressing, Lotus Renault GP shouldn't be included as part of Renault's constructors section as it wasn't a Renault factory team it was classed as a privateer with independent ownership. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I still agree. The problem is that on every occasion you raised this (here, here and here), reactions were mixed and were insufficient for a consensus to change. I must note that the rule that is always cited when this raised, that we group results based on the constructor name and car name pattern, is not consistently applied. With the recent Marussia example, we give the team a new article for their activities from 2015 onwards despite the team still being run as Marussia by the new investor(s), the constructor being credited as Marussia in every FIA document [9][10][11][12][13][14] and the team themselves naming the car the Marussia MR03B. We really should start practicing what we preach. Tvx1 17:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

If Renault do someday decide to return as a constructor then it will get a little messy because it will say that they reverted to an engine supplier in 2011 but then the article contradicts that by saying the team continued as factory team; Lotus Renault GP even though it changed ownership and race team status to a privateer, it makes more sense for it to be in it's own little section of the article explaining that it had separate non-factory ownership.Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

SQM, the issue has been addressed - several times, most recently only a couple of months ago (just because no changes were made doesn't mean the issue hasn't been addressed). But as Tvx1 pointed out, on none of those occasions was there consensus for change. My suggestion is to leave it for 6 months and if you still feel the same then, raise the matter again, in case circumstances, or the opinions of others have changed by then - consensus can change. DH85868993 (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Actually, upon re-reading the earlier discussions more closely, the issue of where to locate the "Lotus Renault GP" section within the Renault in Formula One article was really only discussed in the most recent discussion (the earlier discussions mainly focussed on which article should contain the info and/or whether 2011 should be included in the Renault in Formula One infobox stats). However, as I said in that most recent discussion, it seems sensible to me that if we include 2011 in the infobox stats (on the basis that the cars were called "Renaults"), then discussion of that season also belongs under the "Constructor" section. DH85868993 (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If we continue that approach we're being awfully inconsistent, since we have started a separate article for the 2015 "Marussias", despite them being just as much called "Marussias" as their predecessors. Furthermore the 2011 literally stated that the Renaults kept that name in 2011 for similar reasons as BMW Sauber keeping their name in 2010, yet we approach them differently in their articles. It's really difficult to find any consistency in how we deal with these situations. Tvx1 11:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Keeping Lotus Renault GP under Renault's constructor section is factually incorrect as it isn't a Renault factory team and its inconsistent with other articles like Sauber keeping the BMW Sauber name for 2010 and Manor keeping the Marussia name this year, At the present the Entone based team is referred to as Lotus during the 2011 season due its change in ownership and different branding the only reason the team still used the Renault name in 2011 was because of end of season payouts and the fact a rival team was already using the Lotus name at the time, it makes more sense for it to have its own separate section or for its results to be separate because what if Renault do decide to return as a constructor and they celebrate a milestone GP then the Grand Prix tally will be all wrong because they don't count 2011 as a season they competed, just look at (www.renaultf1.com) 2011 isn't there so they obviously don't count it so why should we just because it will mess with curtain users OCD. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I agree that there is inconsistency in the way we handle Renault and Marussia (you may also recall that I supported the idea of including Manor Marussia's 2015 activities at Marussia F1). I do think the Sauber/BMW Sauber situation is slightly different, because they went from Sauber to BMW Sauber back to Sauber.

@SQM: I don't see why listing Lotus Renault GP under the Constructor section of the article implies that it was a "Renault factory team". The article makes it quite clear that Renault sold its remaining stake in the team at the end of 2010. And if Renault do decide to return as a constructor, then we will re-evaluate the situation at that time. Just like we did Lotus Racing became Team Lotus and Team Lotus became Caterham F1, etc. DH85868993 (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Because the Renault in Formula One article is meant for Renault's Formula One involvement just like BMW in Formula One is for BMW's, Alfa Romeo in Formula One is for Alfa Romeo's and Mercedes-Benz in Formula One is for Mercedes-Benz, Lotus Renault GP wasn't factory owned by Renault it was owned by a private company using the Renault name for prize money, Renault reverted to an engine supplier at that time so it shouldn't belong in the Renault constructor section it was an independent privateer, treat it the same as BMW Sauber/Sauber in 2010 and Manor/Marussia in 2015. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy, I think your arguments are incorrect, because the constructor was still officially Renault, regardless who were the actual owners. If we apply your logic, the 2010 Renault team wasn't a manufacturer-owned team either, because Renault only held a minority 25% stake, the major stakeholder of Renault F1 Team Limited was Genii Capital, and they had the control of the team, not Renault. Then, following that premise, we should unify the 2010 Renault F1 Team and the 2011 Lotus Renault GP into a separate article or section, which I don't think has much sense. Besides, we must remember Lotus was merely a title sponsor back then. We don't create articles based on limited sponsorships as, for example, "Infiniti Red Bull Racing." I think the status quo is the better solution. --Urbanoc (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

List of fatal Formula One accidents

@Fitnr: has moved List of fatal Formula One accidents to List of Formula One fatalities. Apart from the questionable wisdom of moving a featured list without discussion, I don't think the title is an improvement, and is now even vaguer than it was before. Much discussion has taken place on the title with no result. Maybe we should decide on a better title at this stage. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I made the move for two reasons. First, the list is a list of people who have died, not a list of events. Second, it's notevery death on the list is accidental in the sense of "happens by chance or without apparent or deliberate cause." Deaths that result from the negligence of drivers or race organizers aren't accidents in that sense, to assert that they are is POV. Fitnr 19:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not simply a list of people, it's a list of people and details of where and when they died, and what they were doing at the time; effectively a list of events. To suggest that they were not accidents is to suggest that they were in some sense deliberate or intentional. None of these accidents was deliberate or intentional. By your definition, nothing can ever be an accident as an underlying cause can be found for any crash or similar incident. Therefore, everything is ultimately somebody's fault. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

To call a group of events "accidents" is to assert that none resulted from intention or negligence. Avoiding the word accident in favor of more descriptive terms ('death', 'crash', 'collision') makes no claims about underlying causes. Fitnr 20:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you have a very narrow definition of the word "accident". An accident is simply an event (usually unfortunate) that is unexpected and unintentional. No underlying cause or absence of negligence is inferred in the use of the word "accident". All the events in the list can be sourced as accidents anyway. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by giving an example of an F1 fatality that you consider an accident and one which you consider not to be an accident. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ (edit conflict) One of the principles of Wiki is that we use common and commonly understood expressions in the majority of cases. An accident is a (sudden) non-deliberate event and as such is the correct term. Viz. all road 'crashes' irrespective of blame are referred to as RTAs (road traffic accidents). Similarly the term applies to motorsport incidents. Eagleash (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of that page as it's name I feel is misleading, when it said List of fatal Formula One accidents - When I first read it years ago, I thought it would say Ayrton Senna as the most recent driver to die, then the marshals that had died. I don't think people who died in an F1 car should be in the same list if it wasn't a part of the World Championship Event. Maybe we could split it into separate pages; List of drivers killed driving an F1 car and List of people killed at a Formula One Event or rename the page and have several lists on that page for example a page called List of Formula One related deaths with three lists, Drivers killed in a Formula One Event, Drivers killed outside a Formula One Event and List of personnel killed at a Formula One Event. Hope this helps. CDRL102 (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Since this discussion was started, it has been proposed that the article be moved to List of Formula One driver fatalities. Editors are welcome to contribute to the move discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Citation recommendations (circa 1970)

I reached the 1970 Formula One season page via one of the typo/copyediting lists and found out that it's also entirely uncited. Are there good, trusted resources that you use for covering older F1 races? I didn't love what I was finding on Google, and I wasn't sure about the reliability of what was cited on the individual 1970 race pages that I looked at. I've removed the non-neutral language from the race descriptions and am happy to do the leg work on citing but want some confirmation that I'm pulling data from the best places. Alaynestone (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I always have had great faith in Motor Sport magazine and their archive is available on-line here. Reports from then would most likely have been written by Denis Jenkinson (DSJ). The whole archive is being copy-edited and I'm not sure if 1970 has been done yet. (I should also declare COI as I have been one of the copy-editors -- freelance!). 1970 is here and a quick look tells me it hasn't been CE'd yet! Scroll down for all 1970 issues. Eagleash (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

In fact, many of the older season articles up to even the early 2000s' reports have but a few sources if any currently present. That is certainly a major working point for the project. Tvx1 02:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I was able to get through race 7 with free articles. Thanks so much! Alaynestone (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I've always found it resets to zero after a day or so, when I'm not logged-in as an editor. Try again a bit later on. Glad you found it useful. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia