Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:46, 9 September 2012

• WT:F1

Formula One Project‑class

This page is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information. View the task list Discuss the project Help out with Portal:Formula OneFormula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

F1 results table keys renamed

FYI, {{F1 driver results legend}}, {{F1 driver results legend 2}} and {{F1 driver results legend 3}} have recently been renamed to {{Motorsport driver results legend}}, {{Motorsport driver results legend 2}} and {{Motorsport driver results legend 3}}, almost certainly as a result of a comment I made at a recent deletion discussion where I pointed out that as well as being used for F1 World Championship results tables, {{F1 driver results legend 2}} is also used for most (all?) DTM results tables (even though that's probably slightly inappropriate, since {{F1 driver results legend 2}} contains an entry for "Friday test driver", which isn't relevant to DTM) and possibly other series' results tables as well.

How should we proceed:

• Leave things as they are, noting that redirects are in place, so we don't actually need to make any changes to the F1 driver/team/car/season summary articles
• Change the names back, because "it was fine how it was" (the DTM usage notwithstanding)
• Change the names back for {{F1 driver results legend 2}} (intended/suitable for use with F1 World Championship results) and {{F1 driver results legend 3}} (intended/suitable for use with F1 non-championship race results), and change all the non-F1 results tables which currently use them to use {{Motorsport driver results legend}} instead
• Something else?

DH85868993 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they should be left as they are. The current situation leaves them open to being changed by people who think they're too F1-centric since they're "motorsport" templates. Certainly numbers 2 and 3 should be changed back, I think. I created #3 specifically as a non-championship F1 template, and I don't think it's used anywhere else. I don't know how big a job it would be to change the non-F1 results tables to use {{Motorsport driver results legend}}, but that might be a good idea. I don't like the word "motorsport" anyway, I think it's an Americanism. It ought to be "motor sport", per Motor Sport Magazine and the Motor Sports Association. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Change 'em back. AFAIK, only F1 uses (used) pre-qual, so "motorsport" is too broad. TREKphiler 09:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'll revert {{Motorsport driver results legend 2}} and {{Motorsport driver results legend 3}} to {{F1 driver results legend 2}} and {{F1 driver results legend 3}}, and when I have time (on the weekend?) I'll change all the non-F1 uses of these templates to use {{Motorsport driver results legend}} instead. DH85868993 (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That is to say, I would revert them if I could, but I can't. Any friendly admins listening who could perform the reverts? (if so, please remember to also move the "sandbox", "testcases" and "doc" subpages). I have updated the non-F1 usages to use {{Motorsport driver results legend}} instead. DH85868993 (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've listed the templates at WP:RM. DH85868993 (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Since we're going to the trouble of having the templates renamed by an admin, should we take the opportunity to improve the names, rather than just revert them to what they were? Specifically, how about {{Formula One championship results legend}} and {{Formula One non-championship results legend}}? I'm suggesting removing the word "driver" from the names, because they're not just used for driver results tables - they're also used for team/constructor and car results tables. I've also suggested "Formula One championhip results legend" rather than "Formula One World Championship results legend" because although the vast majority of uses are for World Championship results tables, there are a few cases where they are used for other F1 championship results tables (e.g. Britsh F1 series results tables in 1978 British Formula One season..1982 British Formula One season and Giacomo Agostini). Of course, we'd leave {{F1 driver results legend 2}} and {{F1 driver results legend 3}} as redirects, so we wouldn't need to update any articles. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I do agree, renaming now seems a good idea. However, it seems to me not having "World Championship" is asking for confusion. At a glance, the Brit F1 page linked to above is a misnomer, since it's not the World Championship. That being so, I'd say divide them as "World" & "Non-World" or "Non-Champ". Failing that, anybody want to try a " Championship" template? TREKphiler 04:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Or we could rename the existing templates to "Formula One World Championship results legend" and "Formula One non-championship results legend" and to use {{Motorsport driver results legend}} for the British F1 series tables. DH85868993 (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That could work. My thought is, if there's a way to do a generic "championship" one, it would be useful for Formula Ford, Formula Vee, GP2/GP3, Formula Atlantic, & all the others I've left out. :D It would still fit their self-identified form, & be more "type specific". Too much trouble? (If so, I'll not complain.) TREKphiler 04:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As it currently stands, the templates will be renamed to their original names ({{F1 driver results legend 2}} and {{F1 driver results legend 3}}) in (probably) a couple of days' time. (I didn't think there was yet a strong enough consensus on "improved" names). Are there any further comments on the idea of improving the template names? DH85868993 (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The templates have been moved back to their original names ({{F1 driver results legend 2}} and {{F1 driver results legend 3}}). DH85868993 (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Williams FW07 nomenclature

I've started a discussion at Talk:Williams FW07 about the correct nomenclature for the FW07 6-wheeler and the FW07 cars used for the first 3 races of 1982. Interested parties are invited to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And a similar discussion at Talk:Williams FW08#6-wheeler about the correct name for the 6-wheeled FW08. Again, interested parties are welcome to participate. DH85868993 (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of six-wheeled F1 cars, would a category for them be appropriate? There are articles for Tyrrell P34, March 2-4-0, Williams FW07, Williams FW08 and Ferrari 312T, all of which would fit in such a category.--Midgrid(talk) 13:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Becoming a member

It says you just have to add your name to the list. Is that really it? Because I would like to join, if that is possible. My F1 credentials aren't exactly impressive (My first GP was the 2005 GP and I only watched the home GP til 09 when I watched it and the GP and only this year (2012) I have attempted to watch at least qually of all races (as the races are on after I have to go to bed, yes I still go to school)) , but I am keen to learn. Is this the same with any other motorsport-based WikiProjects? Just to make sure... TollHRT52 (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2012 (AEST)

It says you just have to add your name to the list. Is that really it? Yes, that's really it. As far as I'm aware, it's the same for any WikiProject. Welcome aboard! DH85868993 (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. TollHRT52 (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2012 (AEST)

Indeed, welcome. Wikiprojects don't own pages, we are merely a group of loosely affiliated editors with similar interests. Basically, we are here for help, guidance and another perspective. Sometimes it helps to draw attention to inconsistencies if you raise them here rather than at an individual article, and where ambiguity exists it helps to talk it out where most editors congregate so that you can get a wide input from informed editors. Other than that, what you get up to is your own business! Glad to have you aboard. Pyrope 16:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Formula One fatal accidents FL nomination

FYI, List of Formula One fatal accidents has been (re-)nominated for featured list status. The discussion is located here.--Midgrid(talk) 19:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Attention needed

Please keep an eye out for the return of "Reverted random unexplained IP change to motor racing article". After a pause one has surfaced at 2012 German Grand Prix. Britmax (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Lotus disambiguation page (and Lotus in general)

I would like to create a talk and reach a consensus about Lotus' disambiguation page (http://en.wikipedia.org/Lotus), and 2011 Team Lotus' status. IMHO, on the disambiguation page, the hierarchy might lead people to think Team Lotus belonged to Lotus Cars (whereas they've been separate companies since 1954, although both were created by Colin Chapman). Team Lotus '10-'11, on the contrary, should be connected to Team Lotus '54-'94, if not in the same article, as it is the same brand, (with a different nationality and structure, I admit). Mercedes' case is similar: the current team has nothing to see with '54-'55 Mercedes, yet they're part of the same article, so logically, Team Lotus '10-'11 should be part of Team Lotus '54-'94. BenjF1 (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As we are discussing a Disambiguation page and not a page carrying actual content, I feel this is massively unimportant. People who are sufficiently interested in the subject to draw any conclusions will either not see this disambig page, or click onto the articles which carries the importance of the subjects, chapter and verse. --Falcadore (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, when I talked about it on the disambiguation page, I was told to come here. And as I said, I also mean to talk about the general status of Team Lotus 10-11, which should be at least linked to Team Lotus 54-94 considering this is the same brand. BenjF1 (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Being the same brand does not make them the same team. Simply using the same name for one of their two years does not mean the team has any relation to the previous team. Team Lotus 2011 is in fact 1Malaysia F1 Team, a company that founded and ran the team, that has no relation to Lotus Cars. Mercedes-Benz is different in that the 1950s and 2010s versions of the team were both started and run by Mercedes-Benz.

On the other hand I believe that Lotus F1 Team should be equally seperate from Lotus Cars as, although the relationship is closer between the two than it was between Lotus Racing/Team Lotus and Lotus Cars, the company still does not own or run the team, the naming and branding in this case is simply sponsorship. The same also applies to Lotus GP, the GP2/GP3 team.

So in summary, through various discussions on WikiProject Formula One, the status of Lotus Racing/Team Lotus is that they have no relation other than name to the original Team Lotus, and are therefore seperate entities with no shared history. Lotus F1 Team is also a seperate entity, both from Lotus and from Renault F1 as the team has changed owners. And as for the disambiguation page, the "hierarchy" is a bit moot as anyone reading the brief descriptions should be capable of figuring out what they are looking for. A simple elimination of the hierarcy and simply listing every entry with equal indentation would thus eliminate the problem. The5₉ (Talk) 09:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion for the disambiguation page is the same as The359's: give every entry the same indentation and let the words describe the relationships between them. As for the "general status of Team Lotus 10-11", the current arrangement of articles about "Formula One teams with the word Lotus as part of their name" is the result of numerous lengthy discussions over the past 3 years. The Team Lotus (2010-11) article clearly explains the relationships between that team, Lotus Cars and the original Team Lotus. DH85868993 (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

DH85868993: I agree the article is quite clear, but I think it is not accurate enough on several points. It says the team "used the name" - if it were only using the name, they would have got a license from TL or something, but they bought the brand, and that's different IMHO. Then, the article says TL "forms part of the Caterham Group" whereas Caterham Cars was bought by Team Lotus Enterprises, so that's actually the contrary. Although I admit this has nothing to do with the Lotus Case, that's another lack of accuracy.

The359: Saying that being the same brand does not make them the same team is an acceptable statement, but I honestly cannot see the difference with Mercedes. It's just the same brand coming back to F1 in another factory. Renault did the same, they even actually bought a team they used to race against, yet they are one unique article. And actually their case is interesting, because they're a French team that came back to F1 buying an English-located factory. 2011 Team Lotus should be more legitimate since they were even based a few kilometers away from Classic Team Lotus and from the old Team Lotus factory. So there is no actual consistency. The fact that the company name is different doesn't change the identity of the team. Caterham F1 Team is still 1Malaysia Racing Team, yet nobody will deny that Caterham has just entered F1.BenjF1 (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I know you're new here, but we're really not looking forward to opening up this nightmare again! New Team Lotus and Caterham get separate pages because of the convention that a new page is created for a team when the constructor name changes - regardless of the company owning it. It gets confusing when you consider that team/constructor haven't always meant the same thing, but it's all really been debated to death. When there's two "entities", for lack of a better word, sharing the same name, it gets more completed. Renault and Mercedes are considered the same team as the same organisation controlled them - the various Lotus teams are separate as they are all controlled by different people, effectively it's just a coincidence that they are all called Lotus. QueenCake (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your argument. But you say the various Lotus teams are separate because they are all controlled by different people. Sorry but that's the same for Mercedes and Renault again: 2002 Renault, 2010 Mercedes and 2011 Team Lotus were all three entered by the same company than in the past with different people at the head of the company and at the head of the team, and a different factory as well. BenjF1 (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

When he says "people", he means corporations. Mercedes-Benz F1 is owned by Mercedes-Benz, in both incarnations. Same with Renault. Team Lotus of the 1960s ceased to exist as anything more than a brand name for sale, and was bought by a completely unrelated company solely for the purposes of using the name. The location of the factory is also not a factor in this. For Team Lotus of 2011 to be similar to the cases of Mercedes-Benz and Renault, it'd have to effectively be started by Lotus Cars, which it most certainly did not. The5₉ (Talk) 08:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course it did not. But TL wasn't only a name, for example last year, Fernandes owned the rights on the association of TL's special shades of green and yellow in F1. Plus, if David Hunt had been willing to bring Team Lotus back himself, as he owned the team at the end of 1994, wouldn't it have been considered as the continuation? It would seem weird that a brand is not "allowed" to come back to Formula 1, then. BenjF1 (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Fernandes owned the rights to special shades of green and yellow in 2011? Even though his Lotuses were painted the exact same colors in 2010, AND the colors are identical to those of the Lotus car company? Where in the world are you getting these ideas?

David Hunt did try to resurrect Team Lotus in a bid to become one of the new teams in the sport, but when that failed Hunt sold the name to Fernandes. I do not know how Hunt's team may have been viewed, but since it does not exist it's a bit moot. The5₉ (Talk) 00:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, as far as the colours are concerned, I'm just based on this piece of information: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/t-find/t-find-number?detailsrequested=C&trademark=2561143

If you wish I can take another example. If Williams stops F1 activity, then is sold by Frank Williams and comes back. Then it's not the real Williams because it's not started by... Williams Cars? BenjF1 (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't represent Lotus F1 Team, original Team Lotus, etc. as if they were Lotus Cars' teams unlike Fernandes's Lotus team, I'd do it like this. And as Pacific Team Lotus is included, I'd also include Lotus Renault GP, or alternatively neither, neither team's constructor name was Lotus. --August90 (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Already looks fairer to me. BenjF1 (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter

How long until the next newsletter comes out? TollHRT52 (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2012 (AEST)

It is the very first first sentence of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Formula One/Newsletter. The5₉ (Talk) 09:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I read that, but there isn't one for August yet, and it is the end of the month. TollHRT52 (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2012 (AEST)

They are published the week after the end of the month. The5₉ (Talk) 06:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

F1stat template

I've created a prototype template called {{F1stat}} that will return key pieces of statistical data for given inputs. This means that {{F1stat|BUT|wins}} returns the number of wins Button has had () and {{F1stat|HAM|entries}} returns the number of race entries that Hamilton has had (356). The idea is to have one central place for updates. When the driver is no longer current we can just subst them into the respective articles. Is this useful? Shall I complete the dataset? violet/riga  15:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a fascinating idea (and no doubt priceless if you need to look up something really quickly) but I'm not sure how it would work in an article. How did you envisage putting it to use? Allypap81 (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It can be used in the infoboxes and race records of all current drivers and at stats pages such as List of Formula One drivers. You can also have prose of the form:

As of the {{F1stat|UPTO}}, Button has won {{F1stat|BUT|wins}} grand prix.

Which produces:

As of the 2024 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, Button has won grand prix.

violet/riga  16:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahhhh that's excellent! Means that the same stat doesn't have to be updated in multiple articles - it only needs to be edited at the central database. I'm fully behind it, unless someone else can spot a flaw I've not seen? Allypap81 (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

♠I like that! Question, tho: Can (will) you apply this to GP generally? Or beyond F1/GP, say in Champ Car? I can picture it being useful lots of places.

♠One small problem: using abbreviations for driver names... This could be an issue where they don't exist. TREKphiler 22:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be easy enough to extend it and make, for example, {{BTCCstats}}. I envisage it being used only for drivers who are currently active and, at least in F1, they all have their own three letter code. At the end of each season a little housekeeping would easily sort out those who have left and those who join. violet/riga  23:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't complain if that got done. :) I was kind of hoping it could be applied very widely, if only to free up everybody who's now manually updating. I don't suppose...? :) TREKphiler 02:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there's merit in the idea. Some points to consider:

• Ideally the template should support all the fields in the infobox which are liable to change after each race (i.e. entries, starts, wins, poles, fastest laps, podiums, total points), so that we wouldn't need to update the driver infoboxes at all after each race. It might also be useful for it to support "current season points" and "current championship position", so that statements like "Driver X currently lies Yth in the Drivers' Championship with Z points" (which are sometimes added to driver articles and then become out-of date) could also "auto-update".
• The "number of pole positions" and "number of wins" fields in driver infoboxes are often updated by non-regular editors; we might need to add a wikinote next to the template explaining how to update the number (or maybe not; if a non-regular editor replaces the template with a hardcoded number, one of the regular editors can just fix it later on).
• If we use the template in List of Formula One driver records, then we'd need to update the "percentage" tables such that they calculate the percentages from the other numbers in the table - but that shouldn't be too hard. Of course, the tables would still require some manual editing/checking to ensure that the drivers appeared in the right order.
• In addition to the three-letter driver abbreviations, it might be helpful for the template to accept the driver's full surname (e.g. "Button"), or even their full name (e.g. "Jenson Button" or "JensonButton"), for the benefit of editors who aren't familiar with the three-letter abbreviations.
• One drawback to using the template is that if you look at old versions of an article, you won't see exactly how it appeared at the time (because the template will still display the current values). Sometimes when infobox figures get in a muddle (or have been vandalised), it's handy to be able to see exactly how the article appeared at a given point in the past (of course you could always work out what the values would have been by looking at the corresponding old version of the template, but it just makes it a little more complicated).
• Regarding expanding to other series, my suggestion would be to trial it with F1 to sort out any issues, and then roll it out to other series.

Just some thoughts anyway. DH85868993 (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

1. The template would include all stats that are regularly updated.
2. I think that we can correct those well intentioned edits quite easily.
3. The percentage calculation could be done using another field in the template.
4. I chose to use the three letter code because they will certainly be unique - you never know if Ralf Schumacher will suddenly make a comeback! The short form seems to neatest way to do it and anyone that does know that the template exists would likely be familiar with how to use it (plus instructions can be placed on the template page).
5. That is a fair point re: looking at older versions. The good thing about this is that it would make it harder to vandalise.
6. It's certainly worth trialling it first.

It might be worth considering making the template return a citation as well as the value required. violet/riga  19:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Structure

Right, so the template is taking shape but will take a while to populate fully. Before I go ahead there is one main question about the structure: what do we group by, the driver or the statistic? For example do we have:

ALO

wins

entries

points

...

BUT

wins

entries

points

...

...

or

Wins

ALO

BUT

DLR

...

Entries

ALO

BUT

DLR

...

...

I'm favouring the latter at the moment but will probably not be the person updating it all... violet/riga  20:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

♠"it might be helpful for the template to accept the driver's full surname" If it did, that would address my desire for a broader-use template (which might then need to be renamed, or offered in "variants" to keep the result updates straight).

♠While I like that it could be used on the result percentages, I'd disfavor it; that really wants manual updating IMO, since the alphabetizing will/may need fixing anyhow.

♠Also, with name coding, it might be necessary to dab driver names. AFAIK, there are no two relatives currently in F1, but Michael & Ralf were, & there's room for confusion between Bruno & Ayrton. TREKphiler 21:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be easy enough to make it accept various inputs (BUT, Button, or Jenson Button) if that is what people want. violet/riga  23:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to group by driver (i.e. the first option). That would make it easier to compare the stats against external sources (e.g. FORIX, ChicaneF1, etc) and to add new drivers as the season progresses (i.e. would just have add one new "block" of stats rather than add one new line to the section for each stat). DH85868993 (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Implementation

{{F1stat}} is pretty much ready, with the first few drivers (alphabetically) populated into the template. I've put it into place in the Jenson Button infobox (permalink in case it is reverted) and it seems to be working. Any final comments before considering taking this further? violet/riga  22:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good! I suggest changing "fastest" to "fastestlaps", to make it more consistent with the other options (and the infobox parameter name) - it's only 4 extra characters. Other changes you may also wish to consider, for additional clarity (although I acknowledge that they're clearly explained in the template documentation): "points"-->"careerpoints", "seasonpoints"-->"currentseasonpoints", "seasonposition"-->"currentseasonposition". DH85868993 (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've changed "fastest" to "fastestlaps" and "points" to "careerpoints".

The template has been rolled out to all current driver articles (infoboxes) and List of Formula One drivers. I don't know about other places that use this info so I will leave it there. We will now just have to see how well this works after the race this weekend... violet/riga  22:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible new cell in F1 driver results key

A discussion is under way here about the idea of having a "ban" cell for driver results tables in cases like Grosjean's next race. Editors do look at the blank cell we currently use for banned drivers and add inappropriate alternatives, like "EX", and it's a pain - but the question is whether this requires a more permanent fix like this, or simply continued reversion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Blank means the driver did not participate. The reasoning behind the participation is not really relevant, be it FIA sanctions, injuries, or any other issue. The matrix is for results, not "This driver could have been at this race, but...." statements. The5₉ (Talk) 01:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

How about we just create a new thingy on the points tables in the season pages as banned from race (maybe BFR?). TollHRT52 (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2012 (AEST)

That's what the discussion on the template talk page is for. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Formula One drivers

I've raised concerns at Talk:List of Formula One drivers regarding that article's data. In January 2010 it retained featured status but I really don't think that the referencing is up to scratch. From what I can tell there are no references for the table itself aside from two offline sources. Comparing the data to www.driverdb.com shows some discrepancies but I don't know if that is a reliable source. It's an amazing wealth of data but can we say that we have no doubts as to its accuracy? violet/riga  23:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter co-editing

I have already left a message in the Newsletter talk page, but since no-one is answering I thought I would advertise it here. Interested? Reply to me. Any co-editors who read this can remove this letter ASAP. TollHRT52 (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2012 (AEST)

You should probably gain a few more months successful editting experience first. This sort of thing isn't really for novices who have only been editing for six weeks.

If you have some project ideas you don't need to be an magazine edittor to introduce them. --Falcadore (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

S'pose I am rushing into things a little quickly, but it feels like you're dragging me down mate. TollHRT52 (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2012 (AEST)

I agree with Falcadore, you seem to want to bite off more than you can chew as a new editor. We are not attempting to drag you down, we are simply seeing the mistakes you have been making in your short time that show the inexperience you have, and feel you need to calm down and take things slowly before taking on larger projects. Suggestions are welcomed, but do not expect them to automatically accepted. The5₉ (Talk) 08:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Calendar table links in the 2010, 2011 and 2012 articles

This discussion is brought here on the advice offered by a user at Talk:2010 Formula One season.

I would like to restore the calendar tables in those (2010 Formula One season and 2011 Formula One season) articles to the state that they were in prior to the edit that occurred on June 11, 2012, in which the links to the appropriate GP pages were unilaterally destroyed without discussion (as far as I can tell) and without a reasonable and rational explanation. I would also like to add similar links in the same table in the 2012 Formula One season article.

The reason I would like the links restored is they make navigating to the appropriate articles less of a chore for the reader. That is the beauty of hyperlinks. The table has a row for each GP of the season and a column giving the full 'Race Name' of each of those GPs (which is specific to that year's race), along with the circuit name and the date. Yet, although there is a race name given for each row in the table and a separate article exists to cover each of those specific races, that article is, following the destructive edit of June 11 that I would like to revert, no longer hyperlinked. Indeed the race name is no longer hyperlinked to any article at all so is vacant and begging for the link to be restored. Perversely, there is a redundant column in the table, the one labelled 'Grand Prix,' which does carry a hyperlink; but not to the specific GP concerned, rather to the generic GP article for that country.

The guideline for links at WP:LINKS is clear in reccommending such links to closely related articles and that the most specific links possible be made, with the linked articles then in turn linking to any more general articles.

Why shouldn't we restore those links in the 2010 and 2011 articles and add them to the 2012 article?

Eff Won (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been offered (on one of the other article talk pages) as evidence of a consensus to remove the links to year-specific GPs from the calendar table. But as anyone who can read it without any preconceptions will see, it shows nothing of the sort. It is fromOctober 2011, and is mostly another user attempting to reason with the same user that deleted the links again in June this year, in a similar way to that which I have recently attemped, and being met with the same obstinate refusal to see reason as I was. The points are almost identical and the cause was almost identical - a unilateral removal of the links. Two other users also chipped-in to that discussion, one supported keeping the links, the other was non-committal, wavering between remove/keep, so it could hardly be described as a consensus for their removal. Eff Won (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If we are refusing to see reason, then what do you hope to accomplish from this? Surely if we cannot be swayed, your arguement is a waste. The5₉ (Talk) 21:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As the debate is very well advanced on the 2012 page I would suggest directing debate there. --Falcadore (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I give up. There is a culture and attitude here that is not conducive to reasonable debate. It is a shame, but there we have it. Eff Won (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, because I know holding a singular debate in four different locations at the same time is conducive and reasonable! Heaven forbid the person claiming to want to make things easier for readers to find is against making a debate easier to keep track of! The5₉ (Talk) 22:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I see we've crossed into The Twilight Zone. Apparently my arguments from a year ago are null and void because of my actions from a month ago — even though both my arguments and my actions are consistent with one another. Somehow, this means that my contributions to the aforementioned discussion mean absolutely nothing, thereby weakening the established consensus. I'm willing to bet that Eff Won will make similar arguments against everyone who supported the consensus in October.

Eff Won, if you want to make a change to the calendar, you need a consensus for it. Don't try and get a consensus that a previous consensus was not actually a consensus at all because a) that does not address the issue at all, and b) it will only make everyones' heads explode. Even if by some miracle you manage to get a consensus that a previous consensus was not a consensus, that will not give you permission to go ahead and make the changes you want to make, because you do not have a consensus for it.

And on the subect of whether or not links to links to specific race pages should be included in the calendar table of a season page, allow me to explain my stance: no, they should not. The reasons for thi are two-fold:

• 1) First of all, the article is constructed in a very specific manner. Ideas are introduced one at a time - for instance, the teams and drivers are introduced through the team and driver table before the events of the season are recounted. To this end, the calendar table introduces the "generic" race articles in the order that they take place. The calendar table is the best place (indeed, it is the only place) within the article for these links to go.

• 2) Secondly, we cannot have two links with similar wording leading to two separate pages. In the past, you have suggested that the "Belgian GP" entry could lead to the page on the Belgian Grand Prix, and that the "Shell Belgian Grand Prix" entry could link to the 2012 race page. As I have explained to you (twice, I might add), this is not acceptable because it is an easter egg. Readers should have a reasonable idea of what a link will lead to when they follow it, and the presence of the title sponsor in the race title column will not distinguish one link from the other given that Shell has been the title sponsor of the Belgian Grand Prix for years.

The only alternative to this would be to remove the links to generic races from the calendar, and replace them with links to specific races. This is unacceptable, because it involves removing content that is highly relevant to the article — the links to the generic race pages — and replaces it with content that appears prominently in at least four other places (the race summaries and the three resuslts tables). It is not necessary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Compliance with WP:LINKS RFC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I have concerns about the compliance with Misplaced Pages content style guidelines, particularly with WP:LINKS with the multiplicity of duplicate links (the 22 to Sebastian Vettel, for example), of the 2012 Formula One season article. I welcome constructive discussion and comments on whether others believe this to be a concern with that article. Eff Won (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Eleven of which are in tables and/or photographs, which by your very own quoting of the guidelines, is an exception to the guideline. If you're going to claim that we are overlinking, please use the correct number instead of a hyperinflated one. The5₉ (Talk) 21:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the current practice there, by the end of the 2012 season in November, the "Race summaries" section could easily have 10-20 links to the articles about Vettel, Hamilton, Alonso, Button, Webber, Räikkönen, McLaren, Red Bull, Lotus, Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault. Eff Won (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I am confused as to whether you are advocating more or fewer links in this article, as in your short time on Misplaced Pages, you have made a number of edits both adding and removing links, and argued strongly in favour of adding duplicate links to this very article. Now this. I also note that none of your edits had any support at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've explained it before, but here it is again. Duplicating links, especially when counted in dozens per section, is bad. Missing links, to specifically implicated articles in an unlinked table column, is bad (single links in tables are allowed, even expected, even if the link exists elsewhere in the article). Eff Won (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

But there are no sections which have duplicate links. You list 22 uses of the link to Sebastian Vettel, yet every single link is in an individual section or table. Further, if you are going to claim that links in tables are excluded, where are you getting the 22 number from, because I count 11 links in prose, and 11 links in tables/photos. The5₉ (Talk) 22:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say Eff Won has added the eleven links from the prose to the eleven links in tables and captions to get the sum of twenty-two. He's clearly done it to make his "case" look stronger than it actually is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally I find this level of pedantry of editing is not constructive when there are much larger content based issues the need addressing. --Falcadore (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. TollHRT52 (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2012 (AEST)

What do I need to know?

As a newly signed-up up member of this project, can someone provide me with a list, or a link to a list, of things I need to know. I'm a passionate F1 fan, and would like to work on these articles in a constructive and collaborative manner. I made a bit of a dodgy start, I admit, but I didn't realise that Misplaced Pages had these sub-teams which were empowered to write their own local rules. I clumsily waded in, shiny new copy of the Wiki-guidelines in hand, and attempted to put the world to rights - and achieved nothing but to make a complete arse of myself - I'm sorry. Please help me and guide me in the ways of WP:F1, and, hopefully, we can move forward in harmony, rather than in dischord. Eff Won (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no list. Nor do we have any rules. The fact that you continue to call them rules shows, to me, that you are not actually attempting to "collaborate" with anything we say, and instead are wishing to continue this arguement by standing fast on your incorrect viewpoints on Misplaced Pages guidelines. The5₉ (Talk) 08:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is going to get done if editors resort to this "you're wrong", "no, you're wrong" kind of argument. We're all here to improve WP:F1, and it stands to reason that the more editors we have, the more opinions we have, and the more likely one of those opinions is to be the "right" one. Of course, not everyone is going to agree and some editors seem to think that "consensus" is defined by when all editors magically change their opinions so that they all agree with one viewpoint. There are always going to be people who disagree with a consensus that has been reached. Despite making a couple of mistakes, when I first joined the first message I got corrected my mistakes and welcomed me to the project. Which is exactly what we should be doing to Eff Won. So could Eff Won and Prisonermonkeys, and any other editors, please, in one comment, state what you think should be in the table about which we're speaking. If we give it, say, 48 hours for everyone to post their view in one comment (i.e. stating why you think you're right, rather than why others are wrong), and then we can see who thinks what and come to some sort of consensus. Or ignore all I've just said and carry on with your slanging match, which isn't going to solve anything. Allypap81 (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

For clarification, this is how the 2011 table looked after Prisonermonkeys' edit on 11 June:

Round	Race Title	Grand Prix	Circuit	Date
1	Qantas Australian Grand Prix	Australian GP	Albert Park, Melbourne	27 March
2	Petronas Malaysia Grand Prix	Malaysia GP	Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur	10 April
3	UBS Chinese Grand Prix	Chinese GP	Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai	17 April
4	DHL Turkish Grand Prix	Turkish GP	Istanbul Park, Istanbul	8 May
5	Gran Premio de España Santander	Spanish GP	Circuit de Catalunya, Barcelona	22 May
6	Grand Prix de Monaco	Monaco GP	Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo	29 May
7	Grand Prix du Canada	Canadian GP	Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal	12 June
8	Grand Prix of Europe	European GP	Valencia Street Circuit, Valencia	26 June
9	Santander British Grand Prix	British GP	Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone	10 July
10	Großer Preis Santander von Deutschland	German GP	Nürburgring, Nürburg	24 July
11	Eni Magyar Nagydíj	Hungarian GP	Hungaroring, Budapest	31 July
12	Shell Belgian Grand Prix	Belgian GP	Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Spa	28 August
13	Gran Premio Santander d'Italia	Italian GP	Autodromo Nazionale Monza, Monza	11 September
14	SingTel Singapore Grand Prix	Singapore GP	Marina Bay Street Circuit, Marina Bay	25 September
15	Japanese Grand Prix	Japanese GP	Suzuka Circuit, Suzuka	9 October
16	Korean Grand Prix	Korean GP	Korean International Circuit, Yeongam	16 October
17	Airtel Grand Prix of India	Indian GP	Buddh International Circuit, Greater Noida	30 October
18	Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix	Abu Dhabi GP	Yas Marina Circuit, Abu Dhabi	13 November
19	Grande Prêmio Petrobras do Brasil	Brazilian GP	Autódromo José Carlos Pace, São Paulo	27 November

And this is how it looked after Eff Won's most recent edit:

Round	This Season's Race Title	Grand Prix	Circuit	Date
1	Qantas Australian Grand Prix	Australian GP	Albert Park, Melbourne	27 March
2	Petronas Malaysia Grand Prix	Malaysia GP	Sepang International Circuit, Kuala Lumpur	10 April
3	UBS Chinese Grand Prix	Chinese GP	Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai	17 April
4	DHL Turkish Grand Prix	Turkish GP	Istanbul Park, Istanbul	8 May
5	Gran Premio de España Santander	Spanish GP	Circuit de Catalunya, Barcelona	22 May
6	Grand Prix de Monaco	Monaco GP	Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo	29 May
7	Grand Prix du Canada	Canadian GP	Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal	12 June
8	Grand Prix of Europe	European GP	Valencia Street Circuit, Valencia	26 June
9	Santander British Grand Prix	British GP	Silverstone Circuit, Silverstone	10 July
10	Großer Preis Santander von Deutschland	German GP	Nürburgring, Nürburg	24 July
11	Eni Magyar Nagydíj	Hungarian GP	Hungaroring, Budapest	31 July
12	Shell Belgian Grand Prix	Belgian GP	Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Spa	28 August
13	Gran Premio Santander d'Italia	Italian GP	Autodromo Nazionale Monza, Monza	11 September
14	SingTel Singapore Grand Prix	Singapore GP	Marina Bay Street Circuit, Marina Bay	25 September
15	Japanese Grand Prix	Japanese GP	Suzuka Circuit, Suzuka	9 October
16	Korean Grand Prix	Korean GP	Korean International Circuit, Yeongam	16 October
17	Airtel Grand Prix of India	Indian GP	Buddh International Circuit, Greater Noida	30 October
18	Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix	Abu Dhabi GP	Yas Marina Circuit, Abu Dhabi	13 November
19	Grande Prêmio Petrobras do Brasil	Brazilian GP	Autódromo José Carlos Pace, São Paulo	27 November

Allypap81 (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's only fair that I give my opinion - I believe the upper table is pretty much as good as it could be - there's links to the general event (for example Australian GP), while links to the 2011 event (2011 Australian Grand Prix) occur all through the season report and 3 times in the "Results and Standings" section, which is, after all, where one would expect them to be. Allypap81 (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This whole "one comment" thing isn't necessary. Eff Won has been directed to a prior consensus plenty of times, and has chosen to ignore it on every occasion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Prisonermonkeys' version, I'd prefer it for 2 reasons: the event title is unlinked (it doesn't need a link, since there's a race report link) & the header is "event name" (since the "year page" implies it, it makes "this season" redundant). TREKphiler 18:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The first argument there could similarly be used to support the removal of other links in that table, so why do you say it for the year-GP links and not for the others? Eff Won (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"why do you say it for the year-GP links and not for the others?" Because none of them are redundant? See, just 'cause links also appear in the text doesn't mean they shouldn't appear in the table. If they're already tabulated, however, where's the benefit of a second tabulated link? Beyond the MOS issue, I mean. (IDK if I entirely agree with the MOS, but that's another thread. ;p ) TREKphiler 21:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying - the year-GP links aren't already tabulated there, only the generis GP for each venue. Eff Won (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"the year-GP links aren't already tabulated" Not yet. Like every other "season" page, the reports will be linked in the tables...unless that's changed & IDK about it. Which doesn't address the "it ain't broke, don't fix it". TREKphiler 21:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you didn't realise that Prisonermonkeys had gone around removing them all recently. From what I can tell, they were there for many months, if not years, previous to his actions. That is why I restored them, and consequently that is why he got me into a bit of trouble with the WP:F1 members. I'm now trying to understand the full picture, to avoid any future faux pas. Eff Won (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys you say I've "been directed to a prior consensus plenty of times". You failed to qualify that by pointing out that there was not actually any evidence of that claimed consensus in the places that I was directed to. Eff Won (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That's because you don't have enough experience to recognise a Misplaced Pages consensus when you see one. It doesn't say "This is a consensus". A proposal was made to change something, and there was no consensus to follow the proposal, therefore the consensus is the status quo. That's how it works. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

And for the benefit of anyone here who hasn't seen the alleged evidence of that consensus, and doesn't know where to start looking for it, can you tell us where that is too. Eff Won (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

My view on September 2, when I visited the 2012 season article, was that as each row in that table specifically represents the GP for that place in that year and that as there were no links already in the second column, that it was begging to have that link added. Following the reversion of my edit there I noticed that the tables in the 2010 and 2011 season articles had also had the year articles linked, up until Prisonermonkeys removed the links in June 2012, so I reverted those Prisonermonkeys edits, to restore those links in those 2 articles too. Today I have also spotted that the 2009 article had the same year article links until just 3 days ago (albeit on the 3rd, rather than 2nd, column), when Prisonermonkeys removed them from there too. Eff Won (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That's because the calendar format that was agreed upon was not rolled out to previous seasons. There's too much work to do, and stuff like this gets forgotten sometimes. This is a huge fuss about not very much. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

And for the benefit of anyone here who doesn't know where to start looking, can you tell us where that calendar format agreement is documented, or the discussion resulting in that agreement. Eff Won (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, when you use words like "alleged", you lose my already challenged interest. I've shown you the consensus discussion, so you can post it here yourself. I'm really not falling for this stuff. You're trying to turn this into some kind of achingly dull court case - stop dragging it out and accept that you're in a minority of one. Discussions of this magnitude are only necessary if there's a genuine disagreement among editors, not just one person out to make a scene. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Was this the discussion that you believe confirms that there is a consensus that year-GP articles should never be linked from the year-GP field in the calendar table? And is that also the calendar format agreement that you alluded to? Eff Won (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that the discussion I linked you to on your talk page? No. That's one editor making a huge, prolonged fuss all on his own, how prescient. You'll note that guy is now permanently blocked for being an asshole. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This one? Interestingly, about the only thing that most contributors agreed to there was that a link to the year-GP article would be a good idea. You yourself offered a format with a link to the year-GP article, as did QueenCake (explicitly agreeing with your idea for it), as did De Facto too, and even Prisonermonkeys offered one when he saw the strength of opinion in favour of it and, perhaps, thought it would help get support for his other ideas. TREKphiler supported the link to the year-GP article there too. You yourself seemed very enthusiastic about adding the link, raising it in several of your contributions to the rathy lengthy debate. I would say it was possibly your main concern there. As it is apparent from recent events that "that guy" (who you say, was "permanently blocked") clearly isn't Prisonermonkeys, I'm assuming it must have been De Facto that you were referring to there, was his "being an asshole", per chance, related to his intolerance of Prisonermonkeys's persistence? Eff Won (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of who advocated what, including me, we could not reach a decision to change the format. That constitutes a consensus not to change the format, so the format was not changed. There is still no consensus to change the format, so the format will not be changed. This discussion is just confirming that right now, so in other words you are getting nowhere. With regard to De Facto, he was blocked for being exactly the kind of person Misplaced Pages hates the most, and he was basically sitebanned. It does not matter in any sense why he was an asshole, it is just taken as fact by all concerned that he was. You'd do well do avoid his methods of editing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The format disagreement (or lack of agreement) was over the size and shape of it though. There was a consensus (as I understand the word) to include links to the year-GP articles. And it isn't the shape or size that Prisonermonkeys changed from the status quo, he simply removed the year-GP links. So what exactly are the characteristics that De Facto had that earned him a "site ban"? Surely not merely that Prisonermonkeys disagreed with his views on calendar links; because if that were the case all the others who agreed with De Facto on that point (including yourself) would deserve one too. Eff Won (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to dignify that with a detailed answer. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand that response. You made some heavily veiled allusions about consensus and behaviour, I merely asked for more detail. Presumably you can actually support what you said. Eff Won (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You know this discussion constitutes a consensus, right? Nobody anywhere at any time has agreed with anything you've ever said. That's a consensus. You've edited precisely three articles in total, Eff Won, most of it edit-warring. The rest of your edits are flogging an abattoir full of dead horses on talk pages. You might consider a new approach to your work on here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Now that's not really a fair intepretation of my 6 days, so far, with Misplaced Pages is it. I spent most of the first few days trying to keep my head above the water whilst people who should have known better were trying to drown me, and I've spent the last day or two trying to participate in this fact-finding exercise, which I initiated following advice from helpful and sincere users, to help me become an integrated and useful member of WP:F1. Did you see the barnstar I just received on my talk page? Eff Won (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is. Your contributions back it up. And there you go again with your belief that everyone's out to get you for no reason. You are not engaged in a fact-finding exercise. I saw the barnstar - I hope you don't think it makes any difference to this discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem reluctant to give me a chance to show that I'm willing to collaborate here. You seem to support the stance that Prisonermonkeys took in ruthlessly reverting my first edit without providing a reasoned explanation, or at least didn't condemn him for that. Why is that? I've been contrite here and tried to understand how this WP:F1 group works. You've hardly been helpful in providing tips, sources of information or a guide to the lore and language of the group. In fact, I almost think you want me gone from here - you jump on almost everything I say. What more do you want from me? Eff Won (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

How about making a single edit about something else - all your edits concern the same trivial topic. I am not in the business of "condemning" experienced editors, and a revert is a revert - there are no "ruthless" reverts. Prove that you are actually here to make edits and do stuff, and not just make endless futile chat about unimportant formatting. I'll help you along by knocking my contribution to this rubbish on the head. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do you seem to think there is some rule in place that says an editor's first edit will always be accepted and can never be reverted? You seem to think it was personal when I reverted your first edits. It wasn't. I reverted those edits because they made the article inconsistent with the other season articles and because they went against an established consensus. I have explained this to you four or five times, and yet you are still under the impression that they were removed out of some personal dislike of you. Are you really so thin-skinned that you take it as a grievous personal insult when someone reverts your edits?

In the time since those edits were removed, you have done nothing short of make and absolutely nuisance of yourself. You have been disruptive, ignored consensus where it exists, refused to acknowledge consensus when directed to it, accused established and respected editors of having achieved consensus through fraudulent means, edit-warred to try and force your changes through, attacked and insulted anybody and everybody who has tried to reason with you and then demanded that we applaud your edits as being brilliant ideas, deliberately mis-quoted Misplaced Pages guidelines out of context to try and force edits through, repeatedly and persistently dragged discussion about changes out, and refused to allow any meaningful progress on any page you have edited until the issue is resolved to your satisfaction. You have shown nothing but aggressive, uncivilised, arrogant, rude and childish behaviour, and I think it is fair to say that everyone here is quickly running out of patience with you if they haven't done so already. And then you wonder why people are "reluctant to give you a chance". Why is that? It's because you haven't shown us a thing to make you want to support you.

You want to know what more you can do to be accepted around here? Here's a few ideas:

• 1) As Breton said, you can try contributing something for once, rather than spinning the page of its axis when you don't get your way.
• 2) You can try showing some respect for the other editors rather than abusing them and criticising them if they don't agree with you.
• 3) You should think about what you're doing before you actually do it.
• 4) If you don't get a consensus, drop the issue. Browbeating and berating everyone isn't going to change it (and in some cases, it will just make us dig our heels in - if that makes us petty, then we're petty; no-one here ever claimed to be anything other than human).
• 5) Stop taking it all so damn seriously.

Finally, I suggest you put some serious thought into how you go about presenting yourself. Because I can guarantee you that if you don't wisen up and quickly, your days here are numbered. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You asked: "Why do you seem to think there is some rule in place that says an editor's first edit will always be accepted and can never be reverted?". Well of course I don't, where do you think I have ever expressed that thought? I think, for reasons known only to yourself (or maybe they are subconscious), but which the rest of us can speculate about, you are totally and maliciously misrepresenting my indignation at the intolerant way you reverted my edit.

You then indulge in a bit of gratuitous self-flattery over your reaction to my reaction: "I have explained this to you four or five times,". I have seen no evidence of "explanations" from you. I think you are misrepresenting your behaviour there.

Then you launch into a vitriolic attack of my subsequent attempts to understand if any of the claims you make to defend your actions were founded:

• You characterise my search for founded reasons as: "you have done nothing short of make and absolutely nuisance of yourself". You might see a request for you to support your actions with founded reasoning and evidence as such, but I see reasonable observers do not.
• You assert that I "have been disruptive", again supported not with evidence, but with your own bluster. So another misrepresentation.
• You say I have: "ignored consensus where it exists, refused to acknowledge consensus when directed to it", yet have failed, despite repeat requests, to provide evidence of such consensus, and in fact, such evidence that I have found from the 2 links purported to lead to that consensus suggests it is you, and not me, who has ignored consensus.
• You allege that I have "accused established and respected editors of having achieved consensus through fraudulent means". Can you provide evidence to support that serious charge which I believe it to be a misrepresentation?
• You allege that I have "edit-warred to try and force your changes through". Can you show evidence of that, rather than that I have resisted you trying to force your changes through?
• You say that I have "attacked and insulted anybody and everybody who has tried to reason with you", again with no supporting evidence, and I refute that entirely as a misrepresentation.
• You then go on to claim that I "then demanded that we applaud your edits as being brilliant ideas". LOL! Can you show us evidence of that "demand"? Well I know you can't, because I know it is yet another misrepresentation.
• How about support for "deliberately mis-quoted Misplaced Pages guidelines out of context to try and force edits through". That appears to be another misrepresentation.
• Then there is this astonishing remark, especially from you: "You have shown nothing but aggressive, uncivilised, arrogant, rude and childish behaviour"!
• And your final shot: "I think it is fair to say that everyone here is quickly running out of patience with you if they haven't done so already." Speaking for everyone else, and misrepresenting them to boot!

Do you spot the common thread in your disgraceful account? Misrepresentation I think, yes, MISREPRESENTATION. How people can tolerate you participating in discussions here, I do not know, or trust anythig you write. Let us hope that that level of impropriety doesn't extend into what you write into the Misplaced Pages articles!

As for your spiteful tips at the end; you can shove them; I won't be taking any tips from someone like you.

Eff Won (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say anything, but I have to agree. If getting rv'd really bugs you, you've got no business here, 'cause it's gonna happen. It's gonna happen on pages you care deeply about. And if this is how you react on a page you don't care deeply about, when that happens, you are going to get kicked. Forever. Take if from somebody who doesn't handle criticism well. :D Do yourself a favor. Get a grip, or walk away now. TREKphiler 02:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, here's an idea for something Eff Won might like to do that is constructive and would be appreciated:

There are a few pages related to the 2012 GP2 and GP3 Series seasons that need a bit of work. They are as follows:

• 2012 Hockenheimring GP2 and GP3 Series rounds
• 2012 Hungaroring GP2 and GP3 Series rounds
• 2012 Spa-Francorchamps GP2 and GP3 Series rounds

All three pages need to have their results tables filled in. This is what they should look like. Perhaps Eff Won would like to consider doing this. The GP2 results are freely available here:

• Hockenheim GP2
• Hungaroring GP2
• Spa GP2

And the GP3 results are available here:

• Hockenheim GP3
• Hungaroring GP3
• Spa GP3

I know filling all of these in seems a little bit tedious, and not all that important. But it is certainly something that I, for one, would appreciate being done, and I think you would get some value out of it, because it will teach you how wikicode works. It's up to you if you want to do it, but I think doing it would earn you a bit of respect from everyone here. That's what you want, isn't it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think expanding some of our older Formula One article that have single senntence descriptions are of MUCH higher value that writing tables for modern junior events like GP3. Expanding high value articles liek World Championship F1 races compared to low value GP2/3? --Falcadore (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be the next step. I was thinking we could get Eff Won to take it one step at a time, teach him the basics of editing and get him used to wikicoding. Then, when he's got a handle on it, see if he's up to editing some of the high-value articles. Or do you jsut want to throw him into the middle of it all and say "Here's an article that deserately needs attention, but even though you're a newcomer and still not familiar with it all, have at it." and then expect him to get everything right? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Experienced edittors don't get everything right (very definately looking in the mirror when I say... type that) so I'm not going to suggest that anyone else can. It was just my personal thoughts that Eff Won's focus on a strict interpretation of essentatially presentation aspects of Misplaced Pages articles, links, flags is part of the problem. Misplaced Pages's motorsport editting fraternity is already very well serviced with table compilers and we are very underserviced by prose writers. Misplaced Pages readers, particularly Formula One readers, aren't going to interested in the tables when there are dozens of website with tables. With a handle like Eff Won, he/she may not be interested outside of Formula One. I certainly would not push GP2 and GP3 ahead of the World Championships of other disciplines like Rally, Touring Cars, GT1, Endurance Sports Car, MotoGP. GP2 and GP3 are support categories and categories that are independant in their own right deserve greater attention.

But all of that is a personal opinion, and hardly a new one from myself. --Falcadore (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

1988 Osella

While doing some roaming of the 1988 Formula One season article, I noticed something. In the entrants table, Osella Squadra Corse's entries are listed as the Osella FA1I and Osella FA1L chassis, using the Osella 890T turbocharged V8. This makes the constructor Osella. However a look further down the page shows Osella's results in the Constructor's championship as Osella-Alfa Romeo. Now, granted, the Osella 890T is apparently just the Alfa Romeo 890T engine from 1987, but was the engine actually rebadged as an Osella? A quick search of some references seems mixed: A reference used in the 1988 season article from GrandPrix.com lists the results of the 1988 Belgian Grand Prix as Osella-Alfa Romeo. Formula1.com lists the results of the 1988 season as just Osella. Statsf1.com also lists it as just Osella. So what is the story here? The5₉ (Talk) 08:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

My recollection from the time is that Alfa Romeo effectively disowned the engine, so officially the cars were just "Osellas". But many sources just ignored the fact and still referred to the cars as "Osella-Alfa Romeos". I'll see if I can find some sources to either back that up or repudiate it. DH85868993 (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Forix has the engine as "Alfa Romeo" in 1987 but "Osella" in 1988. Ian Dalziel (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

1. ^ "Qantas renews Australian Grand Prix Sponsorship". formula1.com. 13 November 2010. Retrieved 13 November 2010.
2. ^ "Petronas extends Malaysian race sponsorship". formula1.com. 1 September 2010. Archived from the original on 4 September 2010. Retrieved 2 September 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
3. ^ "DHL, Türkiye GP'sine isim sponsoru oldu". turkiyef1.com (in Turkish). 21 April 2011. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
4. "Shell becomes Belgium's title sponsor". Autosport. Haymarket Publications. 17 March 2011. Retrieved 17 March 2011.
5. ^ "SingTel renews Singapore Grand Prix title sponsorship". formula1.com. 1 March 2011. Retrieved 8 March 2011.
6. ^ "Airtel Grand Prix of India set to flag off India's F1 dreams". Formula1.com. 18 August 2011. Retrieved 18 August 2011.
7. "Shell becomes Belgium's title sponsor". Autosport. Haymarket Publications. 17 March 2011. Retrieved 17 March 2011.

• Project-Class Formula One pages
• NA-importance Formula One pages
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment