Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Formula One: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:57, 9 September 2012 editTrekphiler (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers63,539 edits →What do I need to know?: get a grip← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:20, 2 January 2025 edit undoSSSB (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers58,303 edits →Can I join this group? I really want to, and I'm an F1 nerd.: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|none}}
{{shortcut|WT:F1}}
{{Talk header|custom_header=This page is for discussions related to articles within the scope of ].}}
{{WikiProject Formula One|class=project|importance=NA}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Formula One}}
}}
{{tmbox | text = '''This WikiProject ] on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 23 May 2011'''}}
{{tmbox|small=yes|image=none|text= {{tmbox|small=yes|image=none|text=
'''WPF1 open tasks:''' {{navbar|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Formula One/Task template|nodiv=1}} '''WPF1 open tasks:''' {{navbar|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Formula One/Task template|nodiv=1}}
Line 8: Line 12:
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 39 |counter = 56
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{archives |auto=short |search=yes |index=/Archive index |bot=MiszaBot II |age=1 |units=month }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template= |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template=
}} }}
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-05-23/WikiProject report|writer=]|day=23|month=May|year=2011|small=yes}} {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-05-23/WikiProject report|writer=]|day=23|month=May|year=2011|small=yes}}

== F1 results table keys renamed ==

FYI, {{tl|F1 driver results legend}}, {{tl|F1 driver results legend 2}} and {{tl|F1 driver results legend 3}} have recently been renamed to {{tl|Motorsport driver results legend}}, {{tl|Motorsport driver results legend 2}} and {{tl|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, {{tl|F1 driver results legend 2}} is also used for most (all?) DTM results tables (even though that's probably slightly inappropriate, since {{tl|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 {{tl|F1 driver results legend 2}} (intended/suitable for use with F1 World Championship results) and {{tl|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 {{tl|Motorsport driver results legend}} instead
*Something else?
] (]) 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 {{tl|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 ]. ] (]) 09:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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

:::OK. I'll revert {{tl|Motorsport driver results legend 2}} and {{tl|Motorsport driver results legend 3}} to {{tl|F1 driver results legend 2}} and {{tl|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 {{tl|Motorsport driver results legend}} instead. ] (]) 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 {{tl|Motorsport driver results legend}} instead. ] (]) 14:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::I've listed the templates at ]. ] (]) 02:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
{{od}} 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 {{tl|Formula One championship results legend}} and {{tl|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 ]..] and ]). Of course, we'd leave {{tl|F1 driver results legend 2}} and {{tl|F1 driver results legend 3}} as redirects, so we wouldn't need to update any articles. Thoughts? ] (]) 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? ] ]</font> 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 {{tl|Motorsport driver results legend}} for the British F1 series tables. ] (]) 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.) ] ]</font> 04:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
::::As it currently stands, the templates will be renamed to their original names ({{tl|F1 driver results legend 2}} and {{tl|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? ] (]) 21:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::The templates have been moved back to their original names ({{tl|F1 driver results legend 2}} and {{tl|F1 driver results legend 3}}). ] (]) 02:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

== Williams FW07 nomenclature ==

I've started ] 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. ] (]) 12:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
:And a similar discussion at ] about the correct name for the 6-wheeled FW08. Again, interested parties are welcome to participate. ] (]) 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 ], ], ], ] and ], all of which would fit in such a category.--<font face="Forte">]]</font> 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 {{flagicon|AUS}} GP and I only watched the home GP til 09 when I watched it and the {{flagicon|SIN}} 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... ] (]) 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! ] (]) 04:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
::Thank you. ] (]) 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. ''']]''' 16:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

== List of Formula One fatal accidents FL nomination ==

FYI, ] has been (re-)nominated for featured list status. The discussion is located ].--<font face="Forte">]]</font> 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 ]. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] 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 ], 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. ] (]) 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 ] article clearly explains the relationships between that team, ] and the original ]. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 ]. And as Pacific Team Lotus is included, I'd also include Lotus Renault GP, or alternatively neither, neither team's constructor name was Lotus. --] (]) 21:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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

== Newsletter ==

How long until the next newsletter comes out? ] (]) 17:34, 28 August 2012 (AEST)
:It is the very first first sentence of ]. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:14, 29 August 2012 (AEST)
:::They are published the week after the end of the month. ] (]) 06:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

== F1stat template ==

I've created a prototype template called {{tl|F1stat}} that will return key pieces of statistical data for given inputs. This means that <nowiki>{{F1stat|BUT|wins}}</nowiki> returns the number of wins Button has had ({{F1stat|BUT|wins}}) and <nowiki>{{F1stat|HAM|entries}}</nowiki> returns the number of race entries that Hamilton has had ({{F1stat|HAM|entries}}). 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? ]&nbsp;<sub><sup>]]</sup></sub> 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? ] (]) 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 ]. You can also have prose of the form:
:::<nowiki>As of the {{F1stat|UPTO}}, Button has won {{F1stat|BUT|wins}} grand prix.</nowiki>
::Which produces:
:::As of the {{F1stat|UPTO}}, Button has won {{F1stat|BUT|wins}} grand prix.
::]&nbsp;<sub><sup>]]</sup></sub> 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? ] (]) 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. ] ]</font> 22:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::It would be easy enough to extend it and make, for example, {{tl|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. ]&nbsp;<sub><sup>]]</sup></sub> 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...? :) ] ]</font> 02:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}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 ], 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. ] (]) 03:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks for your comments.
::#The template would include all stats that are regularly updated.
::#I think that we can correct those well intentioned edits quite easily.
::#The percentage calculation could be done using another field in the template.
::#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).
::#That is a fair point re: looking at older versions. The good thing about this is that it would make it harder to vandalise.
::#It's certainly worth trialling it first.
::It might be worth considering making the template return a citation as well as the value required. ]&nbsp;<sub><sup>]]</sup></sub> 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''


== Standardising all Formula One driver introductions ==
:Wins
::ALO
::BUT
::DLR
::...
:Entries
::ALO
::BUT
::DLR
::...
:...


Hi all,
I'm favouring the latter at the moment but will probably not be the person updating it all... ]&nbsp;<sub><sup>]]</sup></sub> 20:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


I am currently standardising all F1 driver introductions to keep a fairly consistent format and opening paragraphs, drawing on any championships (per Lewis Hamilton, Max Verstappen and Fernando Alonso), karting (only FIA World/European Championships) and junior career successes (per Charles Leclerc, Andrea Kimi Antonelli and Nyck de Vries), and making F1 career run-downs more concise with better points of notability, as well as including career statistics and contract status at the end of the intro. Currently keeping the intros neutral but may consider including referenced statements such as "Widely regarded as one of the greatest drivers of all time/of his generation" for drivers such as Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen, per corresponding association football articles. Hopefully over time this sort of formatting will extend to other motorsport pages to keep all driver pages clean and concise to aid readability for those with little subject knowledge.
:♠"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 ] & ] were, & there's room for confusion between ] & ]. ] ]</font> 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. ]&nbsp;<sub><sup>]]</sup></sub> 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). ] (]) 23:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


I have applied this formatting to the ledes of all World Champions, clearly underlining career span to the reader alongside '''notable''' achievements in motor racing (e.g. major championships and ]). Working on concise career rundowns (per ], ], ] and ]), many of these had a woeful lack of quality and clarity for their influence and relevance to the sport, hopefully it'll serve as a starting block for an increase in GAs/FAs in this project.
===Implementation===
{{tl|F1stat}} is pretty much ready, with the first few drivers (alphabetically) populated into the template. I've put it into place in the ] infobox ( in case it is reverted) and it seems to be working. Any final comments before considering taking this further? ]&nbsp;<sub><sup>]]</sup></sub> 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". ] (]) 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 ]. 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... ]&nbsp;<sub><sup>]]</sup></sub> 22:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


].
== Possible new cell in F1 driver results key ==


Update: All {{F1|2024}} drivers completed by 9 September 2024, all World Champion ledes completed by 8 October 2024, currently working on all Grand Prix winners and drivers who competed up to {{F1|2015}}. Per other discussions, currently looking at '''adding Grand Prix wins to opening paragraphs''' and potentially '''removing nicknames'''.
A discussion is under way ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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?). ] (]) 16:04, 3 September 2012 (AEST)
::::That's what the discussion on the template talk page is for. ] (]) 06:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


] (]) 15:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
== List of Formula One drivers ==


:I would say as long as ] is generally followed articles should naturally be fairly consistent, they don't all have to be identical in terms of structure, especially not when they are in varying states of quality with everything from GA's to articles that are in need of serious improvement. ] (]) 20:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I've raised concerns at ] regarding ] data. In January 2010 ] 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? ]&nbsp;<sub><sup>]]</sup></sub> 23:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
::The structure of most introductions were an atrocious read prior to the changes made, not concisely breaking down careers with inconsistent detailing in many. Avoided major edits to Hamilton, Verstappen and Alonso, whose pages have been edited thousands of times to a fairly well-balanced form. Many other sports follow a similar structure on all pages. ] (]) 20:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure about links of the form <nowiki>]</nowiki>, as in the lead of ]. It feels like a bit of an ] to me. ] (]) 10:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I think the link needs mentioning at some point in the intro, that way it does so without making an added point of the history of their nationality in the sport, which isn’t really notable with the exception of Zhou. I think it’s clear that clicking on “Finnish racing driver” leads to a list of successful Finnish racing drivers, rather than no link at all. ] (]) 15:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Disagree on all counts. A prime example is Antonelli, his article links to Italian Formula One drivers - he isn't a Formula One driver yet. It is an ] link. And the simple solution is to put "Fooian Formula One driver" and then linking to the article makes perfect sense. For retired drivers and current drivers it is appropriate because it is almost always the most notable series they raced in. The only issue would be for former F1, but still active racers. But then I don't think it is a necessary link in any case, so missing it isn't a big deal. Additionally, in (for example Verstappens article) we can write, "the most successful Dutch Formula One driver, Verstappen has 3 world championships" and link to it in that way. ] (]) 15:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Could perhaps add "currently competing in Formula One under the Fooian flag for Team" for all, seen on multi-nationality driver pages, but doesn't feel as elegant or concise. The use of "Formula One driver" as opposed to "racing driver, currently competing in Formula One" restricts their racing career to solely Formula One. F1 career should always be mentioned in the lead paragraph, but all have competed elsewhere. Keeping the link isn't that deep really, but many readers will surely be curious to read on about their compatriots, hence why I think the inclusion is important. ] (]) 15:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::"but many readers will surely be curious to read on about their compatriots," I'm not convinced that's true. When people go to (I don't know) Bottas' article, they want to read about Bottas. I would suggest that they would want to read about Finlands history in F1 is when the article talks about it (I.e. "Bottas is the most recent Finnish Grand Prix winner". This kind of sentence is more common at Grands Prix articles) ] (]) 16:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I'm a bit uncomfortable with a "one size fits all" model for these articles, particularly if it's going to be rolled out across every F1 driver. It will suit some articles better than others, and I would be against changing articles which are already well-written. As a side point, there's a bit of ] here and there – coaching and management do not need to be linked, for example, and country names are never to be linked. I would also say that I personally don't think linking to a list of racing drivers of whatever nationality is useful. These drivers have practically nothing else in common. ] (]) 18:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I've predominantly been focusing on articles that are not well-written i.e. near enough every article besides the World Champions. The quality and lack of introductory detail made F1 articles far too difficult to navigate. Having a concise career rundown in the introduction should be the norm for F1 articles, a point which so many visit to get a grasp of.
:::::::::Removed over-linking on the Jos Verstappen page (Netherlands, coached and managed) apart from the Netherlands A1 team, which needs a link there. As far as linking to a list of drivers from various nationalities, it has been the standard on F1 pages for a while, I've been adding it to pages who don't use it for consistency. ] (]) 18:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Providing it is concise, yes. The introduction is basically to establish notability and give the basics in a nutshell. It probably doesn't mean that a driver's entire career be summarised, and shouldn't include anything that would fail to make him/her notable if that was the peak of what they achieved. ] (]) 18:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I feel as though notability has been followed fairly well on the introductions I've completed thus far; only including FIA Karting Championships, junior career championships/vice-championships, F1 career milestones (teams moved to, maiden wins/poles/podiums, championships), and other major series raced in full-time or won. Full F1 careers have generally been summarised in one paragraph, with two covering drivers with more extensive careers. ] (]) 18:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I have removed the second link in the lead paragraph of ] to the list of Dutch racing drivers – one is tolerable, but not two. There just seems like a lot of blue in some of these, which can be a bit distracting for some readers. ] (]) 19:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::In the case of Jos Verstappen, we have "Dutch former racing driver" all as part of a link. Really, none of that needs linking as all are very common terms. I see we've even got "gearbox" and "bankruptcy" linked (gearbox linked in the lead ''and'' the next paragraph) – that's overkill. If we must link to a list of racing drivers from Country X, let's do it in the infobox. ] (]) 18:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)


===Updated post===
== Newsletter co-editing ==
:Currently standardising all F1 driver introductions to keep to a fairly consistent format, per ] of this WP, with:
:* Notable career achievements clearly laid out in the opening paragraph with no excessive details,
:* Early life, karting and junior career successes touched upon briefly (more widely discussed for younger drivers),
:* Concise F1 career analyses (mention of every season),
:* Current drivers: career statistics and contract status; former drivers: other notable ventures.
:Currently keeping the intros NPOV, with small exceptions where F1 success doesn't strictly translate to the subject's importance. Hopefully over time this sort of formatting will extend to other motorsport pages to keep all driver pages clean and concise to aid readability for those with little subject knowledge.
:I have applied this formatting to the ledes of all World Champions, clearly underlining career span to the reader alongside '''notable''' achievements in motor racing (i.e. major championships or endurance wins). Also working on concise career rundowns (per ], ], ], ] and ]), many of these had a woeful lack of quality and clarity relative to their influence and relevance to the sport; hopefully it'll serve as a starting block for an increase in GAs/FAs in this project.
:]. All leads on this list marked <small>'''N.I.'''</small> are in serious need of improvement, feel free to contribute!
:Update: All {{F1|2024}} drivers completed by 9 September 2024, all World Champion ledes completed by 8 October 2024, all Grand Prix winners completed by 13 October 2024; currently working on drivers who competed up to {{F1|2015}}. Per other discussions, currently iterating with '''Grand Prix wins in lede''', '''moved nationality wikilinks''', '''cleaned infoboxes''', and '''corrected career span nomenclature''': "between ''x'' and ''y''" for discontinuous careers barring one-year hiatuses. ] (]) 17:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)


===Standardisation redux===
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. ] (]) 16:04, 5 September 2012 (AEST)
I'd just like to bring this up again here, because ] is working hard on lead sections for all F1 drivers, and I'm just concerned there wasn't really any consensus for some of what is being done.
: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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 08:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


I voiced opposition earlier to the concept of linking nationality in the lede to a list of drivers from that country. I still oppose it and I didn't honestly see any support for it, yet it's happening everywhere. I just don't think that's a helpful link in this context.
== Calendar table links in the 2010, 2011 and 2012 articles ==


I'm also not keen on linking the span of years that a driver spent in F1 to a couple of season articles, i.e. his first season and his last. I don't really see how they're helpful or particularly relevant links in this context. On occasions, saying that Driver X competed in F1 from (for example) 1981 to 1985 is not really accurate when he might have done a couple of races in 1981, nothing in 1982, and sporadically until 1985.
This discussion is brought here on the advice offered by a user at ].


I feel that the rather full-on rigidity of this standardisation is restrictive and unnecessary, and isn't suitable for drivers with radically different careers.
I would like to restore the calendar tables in those (] and ]) 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 ] article.


I don't want to dismiss what this editor is doing at all, because some lead sections were in dire need of work, but I want to see a more consensus-based approach, and more flexibility within the lead section structure. Any thoughts? ] (]) 15:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
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.


:Started a discussion on nationality linking at ]. Career span could easily be fixed with "between x and y" for those who didn't compete in each of said years. ] (]) 15:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
The guideline for links at ] 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.


::Also, a reminder that occupations and roles held by the subject that don't contribute to his/her notability shouldn't be in the opening paragraph, per ]. That would probably include most uses of "engineer", and "motorsport executive". The latter linking to "business executive" is an unhelpful link as it doesn't tell the reader anything at all about the role held by the subject. If a driver became a notable team owner then better just to use that term. ] (]) 00:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Why shouldn't we restore those links in the 2010 and 2011 articles and add them to the 2012 article?
:::A ] article could be justified in that case, or simply linking to ]. It has proven tough drawing the line with some articles regarding their notability as engineers and executives, I'd argue any driver who has managed/directed a Formula One team certainly qualifies for such a title, but with lower categories it's tricky e.g. ] (can see why this one should be removed though). As for engineering, having a professional career as an engineer and subsequently having major developmental roles within their teams could be argued as notable but, again, a marginal call. ] (]) 00:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I would say try to imagine these guys without their driving careers, and consider whether or not their other activities would merit an article on Misplaced Pages. Definitely anyone who managed an F1 team or designed an F1 car would count, but I would describe them as team boss or racing car designer, just as they would be described in reliable sources, and aim for specificity rather than a generic "executive" or "engineer" term. Try to avoid linking to really broad scope articles which aren't going to explain anything to the reader about that driver. Having a professional career as an engineer, or studying as an engineer at college is not inherently notable but being an automotive engineer at an F1 team probably is. ] (]) 01:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'll be going back over every article with the changes discussed (moving nationality links from lede, adding Grand Prix wins, re-wording discontinuous career spans), as well as cleaning up infoboxes and whatnot, and will look closer at their further professional notabilities with that. ] (]) 01:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:I also find the standardization work problematic. The edits being made affect the work of other WPs, including those for ], and ]. Contents related to the work of these WPs has been removed at times or de-emphasized. These edits are sometimes done under the guise of "clean-up," or because the information has been deemed "trivial." I have not seen that @] has initiated discussions with the relevant WPs or at ].
:I find it doubtful that the various careers of so many drivers can, or should, be forced into a one-size fits all approach to their leads. Perhaps the Formula One specific sections of their articles can successfully be standardized, but this should be in an area outside of the lead. ] (]) 22:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::Which non-trivial information has been removed? "Clean-ups" have simply been re-working infoboxes and syntax. All notable achievements in sportscars and American open-wheelers have been addressed clearly in leads and infoboxes. ] (]) 22:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:::You have removed sections from infoboxes when you deem the information trivial, such as .
:::If such information is deemed trivial, will you eventually be removing infoboxes for drivers who only have one or two F1 starts?
:::And again, why do you feel leads need to be standardized? Is this not a very large initiative that has impacts outside of ]? Why not go to ] to propose such changes? ] (]) 22:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::::The "titles" section was unnecessary when his only title is addressed in his F1 infobox, as was having two single-event Champ Car entries and being disqualified from Le Mans once. We don't need dozens of infoboxes for every event contested by every driver where their careers were not notable.
::::The standardisation of leads is for reading clarity that previously did not exist across this WP; bringing this to ] is the next move once they have reached a certain quality so it's smoothed out across the board. ] (]) 22:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::That is not hot it works. The conventions of those WPs are that drivers competing in those series/races have an infobox, regardless of their results. People working through those WPs will decide what is notable. This same convention exists for WP:F1. This is why every single driver who has competed in an F1 event, regardless of where they finished or if the bulk of their career was spent elsewhere, has their F1 results summarized in their infobox.
:::::You have shown a lot of good intention by come on here proactively to discuss your changes. However, the pattern of your edits - the initiative to standardize - has an affect on more than just F1-specific content. Thus this should be brought to WP:Motorsport to ensure that all affected WPs have the opportunity to weigh in on your initiative. ] (]) 00:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I've re-worked over 100 infoboxes over the last few weeks and those conventions didn't seem clear or consistent, apologies if there was confusion there. Amongst them I've had to add several Le Mans infoboxes for drivers with extensive careers at the race, some of whom were not only class winners, but overall winners (], ]). Either way, stating that a World Drivers' Champion also entered Le Mans once and was disqualified doesn't add much to what the reader should be seeing straight away, nor does adding his two Vanderbilt Cup starts, neither of which he particularly succeeded in or is notable for; this driver is not really relevant to other WPs. I wholly stand by my edit summary that the infoboxes were trivial. As the user below explained, it's a case of ].
::::::Perhaps the only exception to this would be ], whose Indianapolis 500 entries were subject to widespread media coverage for his attempt at the ]. If there are a significant number of secondary sources covering Farina's careers in those series then, by all means, add them. Notability should be judged on a case-by-case basis. ] (]) 01:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Agreed that Mb2437 has the right approach to infoboxes. The correct approach here is to remove F1 infoboxes if those are trivial careers in the context of the driver's other achievements. I would recommend consulting ] to assess whether or not results are trivial: this guideline was endorsed by WikiProject Motorsport so should be a good starting point to decide what's important enough for an infobox. ''']'''&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 01:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::'''Note''' I do agree there is a point where this concern does stretch to ], and will be bringing the matter there in due course, per the OP: "''Hopefully over time this sort of formatting will extend to other motorsport pages to keep all driver pages clean and concise to aid readability for those with little subject knowledge.''" ] (]) 01:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::::If a driver has meaningful results for a series or was notable for their participation in it, then it should be in the infobox. In the case of one DSQ at Le Mans, having that in the infobox is much more a case of ]. ''']'''&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 22:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I recently made a correction to the page for ] and noted the expanded lede, which lead me to stumbling on this wiki project discussion. I'm glad someone is taking a critical look at how F1 driver articles are written, as they vary widely in quality and do benefit from re-working. I have a special interests in older drivers (1950's through 1970's) and checked out a few. While I applaud the effort and intention, in some cases these expanded ledes are now filled with unnecessary specifics that make the content in the body redundant. Which, in my mind, is a fault with attempting to standardized them. In the Scarfiotti piece, for example, the edit that added where he was born and his family heritage now makes the "Early Life" section--which is where this information more naturally belongs--pointlessly repetitive. This is the same problem with the ] entry, which now has a lede padded out with many details for which he is not notable, e.g. having served in the Navy. His notability has nothing to do with that. So it belongs in the body, not the lede. To me it feels like standardizing these things become an exercise for the sake of it rather than improving the overall article. The intros are now less concise, which should be the goal of the lede. Mind you, I don't want this criticism to discourage improving the poorly written intros where they exist. But some were fine just the way they were. ] (]) 08:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


:I’ll have a look through some of the older ones as I was thinking of trimming/revisiting a few, including Graham Hill, which sat atop that list. Some older drivers have brief mentions of wider careers as it explains the gap between their early life and racing career, and typically goes on for no longer than a short sentence. The lead should summarise the body and cover each section proportionally; avoiding their early life entirely because it’s not notable is more of an argument for removing the section entirely than its mention in the lead (per ], the lead should {{tq|reflect the entirety of the article}}). I agree the detail of Hill’s being an engine room artificer can go as trivia. Scarfiotti’s family is noted in the lead because it’s absolutely notable enough to be mentioned there, and wholly relevant to his career. ] (]) 09:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 17:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


I agree with the editors saying that there is no need to have standardised wording in the lead sections. I think especially many of the changes that have been made to the first paragraphs have not been improvements. For example, ] is probably most notable for being the first full-time Japanese F1 driver and is often introduced as such by reliable sources, but the first paragraph of the article now merely mentions the years in which he competed in the series. In cases like ] and ], it seems overly F1 biased to only mention the years in which they competed in F1 in the first sentence, given that they also had notable lengthy careers in other categories. These are just some examples where I think the standardisation is a problem. ] (]) 16:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
:As the debate is very well advanced on the 2012 page I would suggest directing debate there. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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! ] (]) 22:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


:Nakajima's being the first Japanese driver is addressed clearly in the second paragraph; it is no more notable than anyone else being the first competitor from their nation, someone has to be the first, it's almost trivia. All drivers who are the '''only''' to compete from their country have it stated in their lead paragraph: ], ], ], ], etc. There is no added weight to F1 achievements at Andretti and Montoya, all major championships and victories are addressed clearly in the opening paragraph. I agree IndyCar career spans should be addressed in the opening sentences for both and have added them, as well as Montoya's Cup Series span. ] (]) 16:55, 30 November 2024 (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.


::Just because it is mentioned in the second paragraph doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't also be mentioned in the first; championship titles and other major successes, for example, are usually mentioned again in the lead after first being mentioned in the first paragraph. Most sources introduce Nakajima as being the first full-time Japanese F1 driver (some examples: , , , ), which shows that it is a notable position. Also, stating that Montoya competed in "IndyCar between 1999 and 2022" and "NASCAR Cup Series between 2006 and 2024" does not make much sense in my opinion since there were large gaps where he didn't compete at all in those series. At this point, I think you have not gained consensus for the standardisation. ] (]) 21:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
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.
:::All of those sources are discussing '''other Japanese drivers''', so it is natural to introduce him as such... It is notable enough for the lead, which is why it is mentioned by the relevant point in his career with a wikilink expanding upon it, but doesn't need to go straight into the opening paragraph; his competing in F1 is addressed and expanded upon across the lead, it's simply a natural flow to address the fact when he makes his debut. The same is applied to drivers such as ] (first black driver), ] (first Dutch World Champion), etc. His competing in F1 ], and is expanded upon across the lead with that fact very prominently laid out.
:::I agree with your concerns on non-linear career spans: "IndyCar between 1999 and 2022" and "NASCAR Cup Series between 2006 and 2024" is factually correct, but a suggestion could be to include efn's with exact years competed, as has been done in infoboxes such as ]. I've added them to ] as an example. ] (]) 23:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
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:


What's the purpose to have it just yet? Too early in my opinion. ] (]) 18:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*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.


:That said, information just copied at great lenghts from the 2026 page. ] (]) 18:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*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 ]. 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.
:It's a disruptive IP. ''']]''' 18:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::Restored. ] (]) 19:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== Racing Bulls move discussion ==
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. ] (]) 00:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


Started a ] for ] to ]. Also may be worth discussing whether we should retroactively refer to the team as "Racing Bulls", when its previous name was simply an initialism of it, to reduce reader confusion. ''']]''' 19:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
== Compliance with ] RFC ==


:On that second point, depends on the context. I would suggest, where an article is clearly 2024 oriented, why bother? There is no confusion if we are consistently using "RB" within an article. The only confusion is where we switch between the two (within an artice) without clarify they are equivilant. ] (]) 21:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
{{rfc|soc|rfcid=1FED44C}}
::Yeah that's what I meant, I agree "RB" should be retained for all 2024 season articles. ''']]''' 21:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I have concerns about the compliance with Misplaced Pages content style guidelines, particularly with ] with the multiplicity of duplicate links (the 22 to ], for example), of the ] article. I welcome constructive discussion and comments on whether others believe this to be a concern with that article. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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). ] (]) 22:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::But there are no sections which have duplicate links. You list 22 uses of the link to ], 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 02:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
::Agreed. ] (]) 13:28, 8 September 2012 (AEST)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
== What do I need to know? ==
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 22:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== Assistance with the history of race directors ==
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. ] (]) 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 ]. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 11:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
::For clarification, this is how the 2011 table looked after Prisonermonkeys' edit on 11 June:
:::{| class="wikitable" style="font-size: 85%"
|-
! Round
! Race Title
! Grand Prix
! ]
! Date
|-
! 1
| Qantas Australian Grand Prix<ref name="AustralianGP">{{cite news | title=Qantas renews Australian Grand Prix Sponsorship|url=http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/11/11522.html|work=formula1.com|date=13 November 2010|accessdate=13 November 2010}}</ref>
| ]
| {{flagicon|Australia}} ], ]
| 27 March
|-
! 2
| Petronas Malaysia Grand Prix<ref name="MalaysiaGP">{{cite news | title=Petronas extends Malaysian race sponsorship|url=http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/9/11196.html|work=formula1.com|date=1 September 2010|accessdate=2 September 2010| archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20100904125536/http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/9/11196.html| archivedate= 4 September 2010 <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}</ref>
| ]
| {{flagicon|Malaysia}} ], ]
| 10 April
|-
! 3
| UBS Chinese Grand Prix
| ]
| {{flagicon|China}} ], ]
| 17 April
|-
! 4
| DHL Turkish Grand Prix<ref name="DHLTurkey">{{cite news | title=DHL, Türkiye GP'sine isim sponsoru oldu|url=http://www.turkiyef1.com/haberler/25697/dhl-turkiye-gp-sine-isim-sponsoru-oldu.html|work=turkiyef1.com|language=Turkish|date=21 April 2011|accessdate=22 April 2011}}</ref>
| ]
| {{flagicon|Turkey}} ], ]
| 8 May
|-
! 5
| Gran Premio de España Santander
| ]
| {{flagicon|Spain}} ], ]
| 22 May
|-
! 6
| Grand Prix de Monaco
| ]
| {{flagicon|Monaco}} ], ]
| 29 May
|-
! 7
| Grand Prix du Canada
| ]
| {{flagicon|Canada}} ], ]
| 12 June
|-
! 8
| Grand Prix of Europe
| ]
| {{flagicon|ESP}} ], ]
| 26 June
|-
! 9
| Santander British Grand Prix
| ]
| {{flagicon|UK}} ], ]
| 10 July
|-
! 10
| Großer Preis Santander von Deutschland
| ]
| {{flagicon|Germany}} ], ]
| 24 July
|-
! 11
| Eni Magyar Nagydíj
| ]
| {{flagicon|Hungary}} ], ]
| 31 July
|-
! 12
| Shell Belgian Grand Prix<ref>{{cite news|title=Shell becomes Belgium's title sponsor|url=http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/89974|work=]|publisher=]|date=17 March 2011|accessdate=17 March 2011}}</ref>
| ]
| {{flagicon|Belgium}} ], ]
| 28 August
|-
! 13
| Gran Premio Santander d'Italia
| ]
| {{flagicon|Italy}} ], ]
| 11 September
|-
! 14
| SingTel Singapore Grand Prix<ref name="SingaporeGP">{{cite news | title=SingTel renews Singapore Grand Prix title sponsorship|url=http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2011/3/11782.html|work=formula1.com|date=1 March 2011|accessdate=8 March 2011}}</ref>
| ]
| {{flagicon|Singapore}} ], ]
| 25 September
|-
! 15
| Japanese Grand Prix
| ]
| {{flagicon|Japan}} ], ]
| 9 October
|-
! 16
| Korean Grand Prix
| ]
| {{flagicon|South Korea}} ], ]
| 16 October
|-
! 17
| Airtel Grand Prix of India<ref name="IndianGPSponsor">{{cite web|url=http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2011/8/12420.html|title=Airtel Grand Prix of India set to flag off India’s F1 dreams|publisher=Formula1.com |date=18 August 2011 |accessdate=18 August 2011}}</ref>
| ]
| {{flagicon|India}} ], ]
| 30 October
|-
! 18
| Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
| ]
| {{flagicon|UAE}} ], ]
| 13 November
|-
! 19
| Grande Prêmio Petrobras do Brasil
| ]
| {{flagicon|Brazil}} ], ]
| 27 November
|}
::And this is how it looked after Eff Won's most recent edit:
:::{| class="wikitable" style="font-size: 85%"
|-
! Round
! This Season's Race Title
! Grand Prix
! ]
! Date
|-
! 1
| ]<ref name="AustralianGP">{{cite news | title=Qantas renews Australian Grand Prix Sponsorship|url=http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/11/11522.html|work=formula1.com|date=13 November 2010|accessdate=13 November 2010}}</ref>
| ]
| {{flagicon|Australia}} ], ]
| 27 March
|-
! 2
| ]<ref name="MalaysiaGP">{{cite news | title=Petronas extends Malaysian race sponsorship|url=http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/9/11196.html|work=formula1.com|date=1 September 2010|accessdate=2 September 2010| archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20100904125536/http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/9/11196.html| archivedate= 4 September 2010 <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}</ref>
| ]
| {{flagicon|Malaysia}} ], ]
| 10 April
|-
! 3
| ]
| ]
| {{flagicon|China}} ], ]
| 17 April
|-
! 4
| ]<ref name="DHLTurkey">{{cite news | title=DHL, Türkiye GP'sine isim sponsoru oldu|url=http://www.turkiyef1.com/haberler/25697/dhl-turkiye-gp-sine-isim-sponsoru-oldu.html|work=turkiyef1.com|language=Turkish|date=21 April 2011|accessdate=22 April 2011}}</ref>
| ]
| {{flagicon|Turkey}} ], ]
| 8 May
|-
! 5
| ]
| ]
| {{flagicon|Spain}} ], ]
| 22 May
|-
! 6
| ]
| ]
| {{flagicon|Monaco}} ], ]
| 29 May
|-
! 7
| ]
| ]
| {{flagicon|Canada}} ], ]
| 12 June
|-
! 8
| ]
| ]
| {{flagicon|ESP}} ], ]
| 26 June
|-
! 9
| ]
| ]
| {{flagicon|UK}} ], ]
| 10 July
|-
! 10
| ]
| ]
| {{flagicon|Germany}} ], ]
| 24 July
|-
! 11
| ]
| ]
| {{flagicon|Hungary}} ], ]
| 31 July
|-
! 12
| ]<ref>{{cite news|title=Shell becomes Belgium's title sponsor|url=http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/89974|work=]|publisher=]|date=17 March 2011|accessdate=17 March 2011}}</ref>
| ]
| {{flagicon|Belgium}} ], ]
| 28 August
|-
! 13
| ]
| ]
| {{flagicon|Italy}} ], ]
| 11 September
|-
! 14
| ]<ref name="SingaporeGP">{{cite news | title=SingTel renews Singapore Grand Prix title sponsorship|url=http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2011/3/11782.html|work=formula1.com|date=1 March 2011|accessdate=8 March 2011}}</ref>
| ]
| {{flagicon|Singapore}} ], ]
| 25 September
|-
! 15
| ]
| ]
| {{flagicon|Japan}} ], ]
| 9 October
|-
! 16
| ]
| ]
| {{flagicon|South Korea}} ], ]
| 16 October
|-
! 17
| ]<ref name="IndianGPSponsor">{{cite web|url=http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2011/8/12420.html|title=Airtel Grand Prix of India set to flag off India’s F1 dreams|publisher=Formula1.com |date=18 August 2011 |accessdate=18 August 2011}}</ref>
| ]
| {{flagicon|India}} ], ]
| 30 October
|-
! 18
| ]
| ]
| {{flagicon|UAE}} ], ]
| 13 November
|-
! 19
| ]
| ]
| {{flagicon|Brazil}} ], ]
| 27 November
|}
] (]) 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 ]), while links to the 2011 event (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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). ] ]</font> 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? ] (]) 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 ) ] ]</font> 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. ] (]) 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". ] ]</font> 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::Was ] 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::] 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? ] (]) 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm not going to dignify that with a detailed answer. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
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?


Hi, I am currently working on a ] about race directors in motorsport. Race directors play a large role in F1, and I am unable to find anything online about race directors prior to 1988. If you know anything, even if it is unsourced, please let me know. The one lead I have is based on this source (), which implies that the position did not exist under the FIA prior to 1988, but I cannot find anything backing it up.
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.


Expansion of the draft would also be greatly appreciated, in addition to reformatting the table (it doesn't look right to me, but I don't know how else to improve it). Thanks in advance! ] (]) 16:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
You want to know what more you can do to be accepted around here? Here's a few ideas:


== Can I join this group? I really want to, and I'm an F1 nerd. ==
*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.


Hello. Can I please join this group? I really want to participate in this F1 project. Thanks. ] (]) 17:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
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. ] (]) 02:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


:Of course. Anyone is welcome to join. You don't need to apply ] (]) 18:20, 2 January 2025 (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. ] ]</font> 02:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:20, 2 January 2025

This page is for discussions related to articles within the scope of WikiProject Formula One.
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, 56Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconFormula One
WikiProject iconThis 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.
This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 23 May 2011
WPF1 open tasks: This box:
  • Article requests: Daniele Coronna, Hans Fouche, Chris Radage, Tamiya radio-controlled Formula One cars, John Hogan
  • Copyedit: Bahrain Grand Prix, History of Formula One, Monaco Grand Prix, 2006 San Marino Grand Prix, Rob White (Formula One), Rob Smedley
  • Expand: Paddy Lowe, Red Bull RB3, Spyker F1, Toyota TF107, BMW Sauber F1.07, Mario Theissen, Franz Tost, Chinese Grand Prix, Colin Kolles, Concorde Agreement, Formula One Constructors Association, McLaren MP4/1, Ove Andersson, Bob Bell, Korea International Circuit, Spyker F8-VII, Arai (company), Shoei, Schuberth Helme GmbH, Bell Racing Company, Jim Bamber, Nazir Hoosein, Formula One video games, Make Cars Green, Jonathan Legard, Michael Turner (illustrator) more
  • Update: 2025 Formula One season, Will Stevens, Manor Marussia F1, History of Formula One
  • Images needed: 2008 Turkish Grand Prix, Paul Rosche more
  • For more work, see this generated list or the Auxiliary list

    • WikiProject Formula One was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 23 May 2011.

    Standardising all Formula One driver introductions

    Hi all,

    I am currently standardising all F1 driver introductions to keep a fairly consistent format and opening paragraphs, drawing on any championships (per Lewis Hamilton, Max Verstappen and Fernando Alonso), karting (only FIA World/European Championships) and junior career successes (per Charles Leclerc, Andrea Kimi Antonelli and Nyck de Vries), and making F1 career run-downs more concise with better points of notability, as well as including career statistics and contract status at the end of the intro. Currently keeping the intros neutral but may consider including referenced statements such as "Widely regarded as one of the greatest drivers of all time/of his generation" for drivers such as Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen, per corresponding association football articles. Hopefully over time this sort of formatting will extend to other motorsport pages to keep all driver pages clean and concise to aid readability for those with little subject knowledge.

    I have applied this formatting to the ledes of all World Champions, clearly underlining career span to the reader alongside notable achievements in motor racing (e.g. major championships and Triple Crown of endurance racing). Working on concise career rundowns (per Niki Lauda, James Hunt, Jim Clark and Graham Hill), many of these had a woeful lack of quality and clarity for their influence and relevance to the sport, hopefully it'll serve as a starting block for an increase in GAs/FAs in this project.

    Drivers completed.

    Update: All 2024 drivers completed by 9 September 2024, all World Champion ledes completed by 8 October 2024, currently working on all Grand Prix winners and drivers who competed up to 2015. Per other discussions, currently looking at adding Grand Prix wins to opening paragraphs and potentially removing nicknames.

    Mb2437 (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

    I would say as long as WP:LEAD is generally followed articles should naturally be fairly consistent, they don't all have to be identical in terms of structure, especially not when they are in varying states of quality with everything from GA's to articles that are in need of serious improvement. TylerBurden (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    The structure of most introductions were an atrocious read prior to the changes made, not concisely breaking down careers with inconsistent detailing in many. Avoided major edits to Hamilton, Verstappen and Alonso, whose pages have been edited thousands of times to a fairly well-balanced form. Many other sports follow a similar structure on all pages. Mb2437 (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure about links of the form ], as in the lead of Valtteri Bottas. It feels like a bit of an "Easter egg" link to me. DH85868993 (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    I think the link needs mentioning at some point in the intro, that way it does so without making an added point of the history of their nationality in the sport, which isn’t really notable with the exception of Zhou. I think it’s clear that clicking on “Finnish racing driver” leads to a list of successful Finnish racing drivers, rather than no link at all. Mb2437 (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    Disagree on all counts. A prime example is Antonelli, his article links to Italian Formula One drivers - he isn't a Formula One driver yet. It is an WP:EGG link. And the simple solution is to put "Fooian Formula One driver" and then linking to the article makes perfect sense. For retired drivers and current drivers it is appropriate because it is almost always the most notable series they raced in. The only issue would be for former F1, but still active racers. But then I don't think it is a necessary link in any case, so missing it isn't a big deal. Additionally, in (for example Verstappens article) we can write, "the most successful Dutch Formula One driver, Verstappen has 3 world championships" and link to it in that way. SSSB (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    Could perhaps add "currently competing in Formula One under the Fooian flag for Team" for all, seen on multi-nationality driver pages, but doesn't feel as elegant or concise. The use of "Formula One driver" as opposed to "racing driver, currently competing in Formula One" restricts their racing career to solely Formula One. F1 career should always be mentioned in the lead paragraph, but all have competed elsewhere. Keeping the link isn't that deep really, but many readers will surely be curious to read on about their compatriots, hence why I think the inclusion is important. Mb2437 (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    "but many readers will surely be curious to read on about their compatriots," I'm not convinced that's true. When people go to (I don't know) Bottas' article, they want to read about Bottas. I would suggest that they would want to read about Finlands history in F1 is when the article talks about it (I.e. "Bottas is the most recent Finnish Grand Prix winner". This kind of sentence is more common at Grands Prix articles) SSSB (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    I'm a bit uncomfortable with a "one size fits all" model for these articles, particularly if it's going to be rolled out across every F1 driver. It will suit some articles better than others, and I would be against changing articles which are already well-written. As a side point, there's a bit of overlinking here and there – coaching and management do not need to be linked, for example, and country names are never to be linked. I would also say that I personally don't think linking to a list of racing drivers of whatever nationality is useful. These drivers have practically nothing else in common. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    I've predominantly been focusing on articles that are not well-written i.e. near enough every article besides the World Champions. The quality and lack of introductory detail made F1 articles far too difficult to navigate. Having a concise career rundown in the introduction should be the norm for F1 articles, a point which so many visit to get a grasp of.
    Removed over-linking on the Jos Verstappen page (Netherlands, coached and managed) apart from the Netherlands A1 team, which needs a link there. As far as linking to a list of drivers from various nationalities, it has been the standard on F1 pages for a while, I've been adding it to pages who don't use it for consistency. Mb2437 (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Providing it is concise, yes. The introduction is basically to establish notability and give the basics in a nutshell. It probably doesn't mean that a driver's entire career be summarised, and shouldn't include anything that would fail to make him/her notable if that was the peak of what they achieved. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    I feel as though notability has been followed fairly well on the introductions I've completed thus far; only including FIA Karting Championships, junior career championships/vice-championships, F1 career milestones (teams moved to, maiden wins/poles/podiums, championships), and other major series raced in full-time or won. Full F1 careers have generally been summarised in one paragraph, with two covering drivers with more extensive careers. Mb2437 (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    I have removed the second link in the lead paragraph of Jos Verstappen to the list of Dutch racing drivers – one is tolerable, but not two. There just seems like a lot of blue in some of these, which can be a bit distracting for some readers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    In the case of Jos Verstappen, we have "Dutch former racing driver" all as part of a link. Really, none of that needs linking as all are very common terms. I see we've even got "gearbox" and "bankruptcy" linked (gearbox linked in the lead and the next paragraph) – that's overkill. If we must link to a list of racing drivers from Country X, let's do it in the infobox. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

    Updated post

    Currently standardising all F1 driver introductions to keep to a fairly consistent format, per goal 3 of this WP, with:
    • Notable career achievements clearly laid out in the opening paragraph with no excessive details,
    • Early life, karting and junior career successes touched upon briefly (more widely discussed for younger drivers),
    • Concise F1 career analyses (mention of every season),
    • Current drivers: career statistics and contract status; former drivers: other notable ventures.
    Currently keeping the intros NPOV, with small exceptions where F1 success doesn't strictly translate to the subject's importance. Hopefully over time this sort of formatting will extend to other motorsport pages to keep all driver pages clean and concise to aid readability for those with little subject knowledge.
    I have applied this formatting to the ledes of all World Champions, clearly underlining career span to the reader alongside notable achievements in motor racing (i.e. major championships or endurance wins). Also working on concise career rundowns (per Niki Lauda, James Hunt, Jim Clark, Stirling Moss and Dan Gurney), many of these had a woeful lack of quality and clarity relative to their influence and relevance to the sport; hopefully it'll serve as a starting block for an increase in GAs/FAs in this project.
    Drivers completed. All leads on this list marked N.I. are in serious need of improvement, feel free to contribute!
    Update: All 2024 drivers completed by 9 September 2024, all World Champion ledes completed by 8 October 2024, all Grand Prix winners completed by 13 October 2024; currently working on drivers who competed up to 2015. Per other discussions, currently iterating with Grand Prix wins in lede, moved nationality wikilinks, cleaned infoboxes, and corrected career span nomenclature: "between x and y" for discontinuous careers barring one-year hiatuses. Mb2437 (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

    Standardisation redux

    I'd just like to bring this up again here, because Mb2437 is working hard on lead sections for all F1 drivers, and I'm just concerned there wasn't really any consensus for some of what is being done.

    I voiced opposition earlier to the concept of linking nationality in the lede to a list of drivers from that country. I still oppose it and I didn't honestly see any support for it, yet it's happening everywhere. I just don't think that's a helpful link in this context.

    I'm also not keen on linking the span of years that a driver spent in F1 to a couple of season articles, i.e. his first season and his last. I don't really see how they're helpful or particularly relevant links in this context. On occasions, saying that Driver X competed in F1 from (for example) 1981 to 1985 is not really accurate when he might have done a couple of races in 1981, nothing in 1982, and sporadically until 1985.

    I feel that the rather full-on rigidity of this standardisation is restrictive and unnecessary, and isn't suitable for drivers with radically different careers.

    I don't want to dismiss what this editor is doing at all, because some lead sections were in dire need of work, but I want to see a more consensus-based approach, and more flexibility within the lead section structure. Any thoughts? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

    Started a discussion on nationality linking at "Formula One drivers from x". Career span could easily be fixed with "between x and y" for those who didn't compete in each of said years. Mb2437 (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    Also, a reminder that occupations and roles held by the subject that don't contribute to his/her notability shouldn't be in the opening paragraph, per MOS:ROLEBIO. That would probably include most uses of "engineer", and "motorsport executive". The latter linking to "business executive" is an unhelpful link as it doesn't tell the reader anything at all about the role held by the subject. If a driver became a notable team owner then better just to use that term. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
    A motorsport business article could be justified in that case, or simply linking to motorsport. It has proven tough drawing the line with some articles regarding their notability as engineers and executives, I'd argue any driver who has managed/directed a Formula One team certainly qualifies for such a title, but with lower categories it's tricky e.g. Peter Gethin (can see why this one should be removed though). As for engineering, having a professional career as an engineer and subsequently having major developmental roles within their teams could be argued as notable but, again, a marginal call. Mb2437 (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
    I would say try to imagine these guys without their driving careers, and consider whether or not their other activities would merit an article on Misplaced Pages. Definitely anyone who managed an F1 team or designed an F1 car would count, but I would describe them as team boss or racing car designer, just as they would be described in reliable sources, and aim for specificity rather than a generic "executive" or "engineer" term. Try to avoid linking to really broad scope articles which aren't going to explain anything to the reader about that driver. Having a professional career as an engineer, or studying as an engineer at college is not inherently notable but being an automotive engineer at an F1 team probably is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
    I'll be going back over every article with the changes discussed (moving nationality links from lede, adding Grand Prix wins, re-wording discontinuous career spans), as well as cleaning up infoboxes and whatnot, and will look closer at their further professional notabilities with that. Mb2437 (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
    I also find the standardization work problematic. The edits being made affect the work of other WPs, including those for LeMans 24H/Sportscars, and Indy car. Contents related to the work of these WPs has been removed at times or de-emphasized. These edits are sometimes done under the guise of "clean-up," or because the information has been deemed "trivial." I have not seen that @Mb2437 has initiated discussions with the relevant WPs or at WP:Motorsport.
    I find it doubtful that the various careers of so many drivers can, or should, be forced into a one-size fits all approach to their leads. Perhaps the Formula One specific sections of their articles can successfully be standardized, but this should be in an area outside of the lead. RegalZ8790 (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
    Which non-trivial information has been removed? "Clean-ups" have simply been re-working infoboxes and syntax. All notable achievements in sportscars and American open-wheelers have been addressed clearly in leads and infoboxes. Mb2437 (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
    You have removed sections from infoboxes when you deem the information trivial, such as this edit.
    If such information is deemed trivial, will you eventually be removing infoboxes for drivers who only have one or two F1 starts?
    And again, why do you feel leads need to be standardized? Is this not a very large initiative that has impacts outside of WP:F1? Why not go to WP:Motorsport to propose such changes? RegalZ8790 (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
    The "titles" section was unnecessary when his only title is addressed in his F1 infobox, as was having two single-event Champ Car entries and being disqualified from Le Mans once. We don't need dozens of infoboxes for every event contested by every driver where their careers were not notable.
    The standardisation of leads is for reading clarity that previously did not exist across this WP; bringing this to WP:Motorsport is the next move once they have reached a certain quality so it's smoothed out across the board. Mb2437 (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
    That is not hot it works. The conventions of those WPs are that drivers competing in those series/races have an infobox, regardless of their results. People working through those WPs will decide what is notable. This same convention exists for WP:F1. This is why every single driver who has competed in an F1 event, regardless of where they finished or if the bulk of their career was spent elsewhere, has their F1 results summarized in their infobox.
    You have shown a lot of good intention by come on here proactively to discuss your changes. However, the pattern of your edits - the initiative to standardize - has an affect on more than just F1-specific content. Thus this should be brought to WP:Motorsport to ensure that all affected WPs have the opportunity to weigh in on your initiative. RegalZ8790 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
    I've re-worked over 100 infoboxes over the last few weeks and those conventions didn't seem clear or consistent, apologies if there was confusion there. Amongst them I've had to add several Le Mans infoboxes for drivers with extensive careers at the race, some of whom were not only class winners, but overall winners (Mauro Baldi, Maurice Trintignant). Either way, stating that a World Drivers' Champion also entered Le Mans once and was disqualified doesn't add much to what the reader should be seeing straight away, nor does adding his two Vanderbilt Cup starts, neither of which he particularly succeeded in or is notable for; this driver is not really relevant to other WPs. I wholly stand by my edit summary that the infoboxes were trivial. As the user below explained, it's a case of WP:DIB.
    Perhaps the only exception to this would be Fernando Alonso, whose Indianapolis 500 entries were subject to widespread media coverage for his attempt at the Triple Crown of Motorsport. If there are a significant number of secondary sources covering Farina's careers in those series then, by all means, add them. Notability should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mb2437 (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed that Mb2437 has the right approach to infoboxes. The correct approach here is to remove F1 infoboxes if those are trivial careers in the context of the driver's other achievements. I would recommend consulting WP:NMOTORSPORT to assess whether or not results are trivial: this guideline was endorsed by WikiProject Motorsport so should be a good starting point to decide what's important enough for an infobox. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
    Note I do agree there is a point where this concern does stretch to WP:Motorsport, and will be bringing the matter there in due course, per the OP: "Hopefully over time this sort of formatting will extend to other motorsport pages to keep all driver pages clean and concise to aid readability for those with little subject knowledge." Mb2437 (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
    If a driver has meaningful results for a series or was notable for their participation in it, then it should be in the infobox. In the case of one DSQ at Le Mans, having that in the infobox is much more a case of WP:DIB. 5225C (talk • contributions) 22:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

    I recently made a correction to the page for Ludovico Scarfiotti and noted the expanded lede, which lead me to stumbling on this wiki project discussion. I'm glad someone is taking a critical look at how F1 driver articles are written, as they vary widely in quality and do benefit from re-working. I have a special interests in older drivers (1950's through 1970's) and checked out a few. While I applaud the effort and intention, in some cases these expanded ledes are now filled with unnecessary specifics that make the content in the body redundant. Which, in my mind, is a fault with attempting to standardized them. In the Scarfiotti piece, for example, the edit that added where he was born and his family heritage now makes the "Early Life" section--which is where this information more naturally belongs--pointlessly repetitive. This is the same problem with the Graham Hill entry, which now has a lede padded out with many details for which he is not notable, e.g. having served in the Navy. His notability has nothing to do with that. So it belongs in the body, not the lede. To me it feels like standardizing these things become an exercise for the sake of it rather than improving the overall article. The intros are now less concise, which should be the goal of the lede. Mind you, I don't want this criticism to discourage improving the poorly written intros where they exist. But some were fine just the way they were. ShelbyMarion (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

    I’ll have a look through some of the older ones as I was thinking of trimming/revisiting a few, including Graham Hill, which sat atop that list. Some older drivers have brief mentions of wider careers as it explains the gap between their early life and racing career, and typically goes on for no longer than a short sentence. The lead should summarise the body and cover each section proportionally; avoiding their early life entirely because it’s not notable is more of an argument for removing the section entirely than its mention in the lead (per WP:LEADBIO, the lead should reflect the entirety of the article). I agree the detail of Hill’s being an engine room artificer can go as trivia. Scarfiotti’s family is noted in the lead because it’s absolutely notable enough to be mentioned there, and wholly relevant to his career. Mb2437 (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

    I agree with the editors saying that there is no need to have standardised wording in the lead sections. I think especially many of the changes that have been made to the first paragraphs have not been improvements. For example, Satoru Nakajima is probably most notable for being the first full-time Japanese F1 driver and is often introduced as such by reliable sources, but the first paragraph of the article now merely mentions the years in which he competed in the series. In cases like Juan Pablo Montoya and Mario Andretti, it seems overly F1 biased to only mention the years in which they competed in F1 in the first sentence, given that they also had notable lengthy careers in other categories. These are just some examples where I think the standardisation is a problem. Carfan568 (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

    Nakajima's being the first Japanese driver is addressed clearly in the second paragraph; it is no more notable than anyone else being the first competitor from their nation, someone has to be the first, it's almost trivia. All drivers who are the only to compete from their country have it stated in their lead paragraph: Alex Yoong, Zhou Guanyu, Robert La Caze, Rikky von Opel, etc. There is no added weight to F1 achievements at Andretti and Montoya, all major championships and victories are addressed clearly in the opening paragraph. I agree IndyCar career spans should be addressed in the opening sentences for both and have added them, as well as Montoya's Cup Series span. Mb2437 (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
    Just because it is mentioned in the second paragraph doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't also be mentioned in the first; championship titles and other major successes, for example, are usually mentioned again in the lead after first being mentioned in the first paragraph. Most sources introduce Nakajima as being the first full-time Japanese F1 driver (some examples: , , , ), which shows that it is a notable position. Also, stating that Montoya competed in "IndyCar between 1999 and 2022" and "NASCAR Cup Series between 2006 and 2024" does not make much sense in my opinion since there were large gaps where he didn't compete at all in those series. At this point, I think you have not gained consensus for the standardisation. Carfan568 (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
    All of those sources are discussing other Japanese drivers, so it is natural to introduce him as such... It is notable enough for the lead, which is why it is mentioned by the relevant point in his career with a wikilink expanding upon it, but doesn't need to go straight into the opening paragraph; his competing in F1 is addressed and expanded upon across the lead, it's simply a natural flow to address the fact when he makes his debut. The same is applied to drivers such as Lewis Hamilton (first black driver), Max Verstappen (first Dutch World Champion), etc. His competing in F1 establishes his notability, and is expanded upon across the lead with that fact very prominently laid out.
    I agree with your concerns on non-linear career spans: "IndyCar between 1999 and 2022" and "NASCAR Cup Series between 2006 and 2024" is factually correct, but a suggestion could be to include efn's with exact years competed, as has been done in infoboxes such as Kazuki Nakajima. I've added them to Juan Pablo Montoya as an example. Mb2437 (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

    2027 Formula One World Championship

    What's the purpose to have it just yet? Too early in my opinion. Island92 (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    That said, information just copied at great lenghts from the 2026 page. Island92 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's a disruptive IP. MB2437 18:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    Restored. Island92 (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    Racing Bulls move discussion

    Started a move discussion for Racing Bulls Formula One Team to Racing Bulls. Also may be worth discussing whether we should retroactively refer to the team as "Racing Bulls", when its previous name was simply an initialism of it, to reduce reader confusion. MB2437 19:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    On that second point, depends on the context. I would suggest, where an article is clearly 2024 oriented, why bother? There is no confusion if we are consistently using "RB" within an article. The only confusion is where we switch between the two (within an artice) without clarify they are equivilant. SSSB (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah that's what I meant, I agree "RB" should be retained for all 2024 season articles. MB2437 21:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good article reassessment for 2015 Australian Grand Prix

    2015 Australian Grand Prix has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Assistance with the history of race directors

    Hi, I am currently working on a draft about race directors in motorsport. Race directors play a large role in F1, and I am unable to find anything online about race directors prior to 1988. If you know anything, even if it is unsourced, please let me know. The one lead I have is based on this source (), which implies that the position did not exist under the FIA prior to 1988, but I cannot find anything backing it up.

    Expansion of the draft would also be greatly appreciated, in addition to reformatting the table (it doesn't look right to me, but I don't know how else to improve it). Thanks in advance! GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    Can I join this group? I really want to, and I'm an F1 nerd.

    Hello. Can I please join this group? I really want to participate in this F1 project. Thanks. 2603:8000:99F0:93A0:9932:FB79:1D30:444B (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    Of course. Anyone is welcome to join. You don't need to apply SSSB (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Categories: