Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:29, 4 September 2012

2012 Formula One World Championship received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2012 Formula One World Championship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Formula One Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information. View the task list Discuss the project Help out with Portal:Formula OneFormula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2012 Formula One World Championship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

2012 GP Map

To whoever created the map of the world highlighting which countries will host GP's in 2012, can you please revise it?? The little island of the south-east corner of Australia is part of the country (known as Tasmania). I notice that Alaska is highlighted, therefore Tasmania should also. --Brody59 (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Technically, they screwed up Alaska as well and missed the "arm" that runs between the Pacific and Canada. The5₉ (Talk) 05:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

They also missed Hokkaido island in Japan.79.21.163.122 (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

How about we just remove it until it is right? --Falcadore (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it because there wasn't a map last year so why start now (and it was wrong anyway)? --MSalmon (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not having one for previous seasons is not really a legit reason to remove it. Why start now? Because it might be a helpful diagram. The5₉ (Talk) 08:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It is wrong anyway --MSalmon (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If the user who created the old one edited it so it was correct or if even I had a crack at it, would it be acceptable? BosleyTree (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why it wouldn't be. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If the original user fixed it or if i had a crack at it would that be more acceptable? BosleyTree (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, if it was fixed then it can be put back --MSalmon (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The new version is up, and it's, er ... green. Very, very green. It might be a little bit too bright. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree buddy. I also want to know why it is squashing the table up so much you can barely read it. That is why I moved the Red Bull RB8 image from next to the Drivers' table to above the teams who had their names changed. Move the bloody map under the calendar.TollHRT52 (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2012 (AEST)

The RB8 image is there because it is the car entered by the reigning World Constructors' Champions. It goes under the picture of Alonso, the current championship leader; and Vettel, the reigning World Drivers' Champion. And the picture of the RB8 is not squashing the drivers' table. The size of the drivers' tabe is programmed by the wikicode embedded into the article. Moving the picture won't do anything.

And please don't call me "buddy". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not on your computer or laptop, but on mine it is squashed. And sorry about the buddy thing. TollHRT52 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2012 (AEST)

That's the resolution of your screen causing the squashed effect. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

fastest lap

in the german grand prix schumacher set the fastest lap 1.18.725 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskander HFC (talk • contribs)

And this article already says that...? The5₉ (Talk) 19:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

but don't here (http://en.wikipedia.org/2012_Formula_One_season) or I can't see the italics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskander HFC (talk • contribs) 22:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It is italics, but it just looks like a normal 7. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I see it now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskander HFC (talk • contribs) 14:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Why no YDT?

Why does the Young Driver Test segment on the season report keep getting deleted? TollHRT52 (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2012 (AEST)

Because it's not important and does not contribute to the subject, which is the season of 2012 Formula One racing. Testing is given no more importance than the training in any other sport receives in their articles. If any of the young drivers actually contribute towards the 2012 races, then its worth a possible mention that they participated. --Falcadore (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Just because something happened, that doesn't automatically make it notable enough for inclusion on Misplaced Pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I agree with TollHRT52, this page is for the 2012 Formula One Season, and therefore everything that happens in it. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The test is not part of the season. This article is not about everything the F1 teams do, it is about the World Championship season, i.e. the Grands Prix, and events that affect the Grands Prix. This young driver test is the F1 equivalent of a Manchester United v Liverpool youth team kickabout. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And if we were to include the YDT in the article, what would we say about it? That it happened? Nothing of any degree of notability took place during the test. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Calendar table links - why not?

Hello, I'm new here, and today I thought I was improving the usability of the calendar table by hyperlinking from it to the Belgian (and later the Italian) GPs to the article for the 2012 instances of those GPs. I came to the article looking for the grid places for today's Belgian GP, and clicked on the calendar in the contents list. This brought me to the calendar table, which is fine, but there was no link to the aticle about today's GP in it. There was one to a generic Belgian GP article and one to an article about the circuit, but neither was what I wanted. I eventually found the article, but it wasn't as easy as it could have been.

So, having eventually found the article, I came back and added the hyperlink for it. However, despite a few attempts to make it stick, other contributors removed those hyperlinks, with various comments such as: "we don't do that", "It already exists further down the page. Redundancy is redundant", "There's no harm in linking every single word in this article either. Or there are guidelines on when we should be linking, and this article is following them" and "Useful links already exist. Redundant links are unnecessary".

This doesn't add up. The table does not already have those useful links in it. The article has links to the generic GPs in more than one table, to the constructors several times over and even to the drivers and circuits several times over, so why not the useful link to the specific GP that the calendar is describing? It's crazy not to. What "guidelines" say you can't add a useful link to a table, especially when there is a column begging for it, and it's probably what most visitors want and expect?

Eff Won (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Because those links are found elsewhere in the article. The focus of the calendar table is not the specific races themselves, but a top-down view of the races.

You may have noticed that this article is structured with information introduced gradually. It's why we detail who the drivers are and what races appear on the calendar before we start recounting the specific events of each race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The links may well be found elsewhere, but that isn't good enough, they also belong where readers expect to find them; in the calendar. If you find a row in the table describing a particular race, eg today's Belgian GP, then you expect a link to it there and not at some unspecified place further down the article. What do you mean "information introduced gradually"? Readers aren't all idiots, and don't want to be forced to hunt through stuff they don't want to read to find what they do want to read. The links would add value, and could be ignored by those who want to read through the whole of the (long) article just for the sake of it. It links to the drivers at first mention, and to the circuits and to the generic GPs, so why not to the specific GPs? Your answer is unsupportable.

Eff Won (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Why can't it link to the specific races?

Because that section of the article isn't related to the specific races. It's related to the formation of the calendar, rather than the events of the season. The only way you could include links to specific races is if you removed the links to generic races, and that is removing information that should be kept in the article. Moreover, the calendar is the only place in the article where the links to generic GPs fit.

This is a system that is used on every season page (as far as I am aware) and is the result of a long-standing consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed at great length, and this system is the one which was decided upon by a fairly large number of editors. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It needs discussing again because there is no clear reason why the first column should not hyperlink to the specific GP. The article would be made more useful, so it must be a good thing. Or can you explain a disadvantage of adding a valuable link there? Eff Won (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not "valuable". It doesn't add anything. As has been said, those links can be found elsewhere on the page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The reader doesn't want the challenge of finding them elsewhere, the reader wants intuitive links. You didn't say what the disadvantage of the intuitive link is. Eff Won (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The first column has no links in it, so we can easily use that with no disruption to the rest of the table. Tell me, what possible races could "Shell Belgian Grand Prix" be referring to in 2012? Eff Won (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No, we can't use that one, because then we will have two links to something called the "Belgian Grand Prix" with nothing to differentiate between what each link will lead to. It's an easter egg. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are worried that readers won't realise the difference; don't be, because they will. In any case, the specific is more useful that the generic there and the specific links to the generic right near the top anyway. And you didn't answer what else "Shell Belgian Grand Prix" might be in 2012. Eff Won (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, you cannot assume that readers will recognise the difference between the links. Misplaced Pages articles are to be written with the assumption that the reader has no prior knowledge of the subject - if they click "Random Article" and are brought here, then they should be able to read along with ease.

Secondly, we don't link to race sponsors. So "Shell Belgian Grand Prix" could theoretically refer to something else other than the "Belgian Grand Prix". What that something else might be doesn't matter; the fact that it can mean something else means that it should not be linked. Of course, we could always link to "Belgian Grand Prix" and ignore the "Shell", but then we'd have two links two different pages that each use the same wikilink, and that is unacceptable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You could use that argument to remove ALL links. McLaren has many meanings and I'm sure Fernando Alonso could be someone else too. The fact is, that row is about the 2012 Belgian GP; but, inexcusably, does not contain a link to it. The advantage of no link when a link is what exactly? Eff Won (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

But they all link to pages that reflect what their links say the first time they are introduced. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The first column of the table that says "Shell Belgian Grand Prix" could be linked to 2012 Belgian Grand Prix - as, according to that article the 2012 Belgian Grand Prix is also known as the "2012 Formula 1 Shell Belgian Grand Prix". That certainly makes more sense than the links further down: Belgium, Report and BEL. Eff Won (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The generic link can't go anywhere else better, and the race link is already present more than once. I'd suggest that fewer readers will be looking to find a race report from the calendar, than from the results tables. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

So far, you're the only one arguing for this, with two against - I suggest waiting to see if anyone agrees with you before wasting more time over it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, there are numerous links to the same driver, the same team, the same course, the same generic GP, so why not put a link, where a link is sorely missing, to the article that the row is exclusively about? Eff Won (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Because right now, only you think it's sorely missing. And there's only one link to each circuit in the article, as far as I can see. Some people argued for fewer repeat links in the discussion we had; almost nobody argued for more. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Really, Eff Won? I just explained that to you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

A quick count of hyperlinks gives:

• Circuit of the Americas: 4
• Fernando Alonso: 22
• United States Grand Prix: 5
• Red Bull Racing: 18

Now tell me again; why can't we have one link in the calendar table, on the row about the 2012 Belgian GP, to the 2012 Belgian GP? Eff Won (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Because, as Breton pointed out, the generic link can't go anywhere else better, and the race link is already present more than once. And as I pointed out to you, we cannot be in a situation where there are links to two separate pages that use the same wording in their links. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The generic link can stay where it is too - why not have links to both? If you can think of a reason for only having one link, then the link to the specific GP is definitely the more useful of the two in the context of that table, especially as it, in turn, links to the generic GP anyway. And nearly all links are present more than once - and that isn't a problem with the others, so why suggest it is a problem here? And, to answer your late addition, they don't have the same wording, unlike the 20 identically worded links in the Results and Standing Grand Prix table which point to 20 different articles. Eff Won (talk) 21:52, 2

September 2012 (UTC)

We can't have two links because we would have (Shell) Belgian Grand Prix and Belgian GP. Do you see the problem there? The two links have the same or similar wording, and yet lead to different places. "Shell" isn't enough to distinguish the 2012 page from the generic page, because Shell have sponsored the race for years.

As for why the link to the generic page article is the best, this has already been explained to you twice: the calendar is the only place where they fit within the article.

And with regard to the "twenty identically-worded links in the results and standings table", each one of those corresponds to the race whose line it shares. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You are dancing on the head of a pin with this one. There is only one Shell Belgian GP in 2012, the 2012 Belgian GP. If you find that too confusing, you could give it its full name in the table and call it the "2012 Formula 1 Shell Belgian Grand Prix", as it says in the article, or even abbreviate it to "2012 Shell Belgian GP" instead. It isn't rocket science. Eff Won (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What I'm finding so confusing is why you keep forcing the conversation around in circles when you don't get your way. It has been explained to you why the article is written this way. Several times. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The "explanations" don't add up though, they aren't rational, as I've explained several times. What I'm finding so confusing is why you are looking for reasons to omit such a useful hyperlink, rather than saying "good idea Eff Won!". Eff Won (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

So that's it, is it? If your ideas aren't great, then clearly we're making decisions based on faulty logic. I've heard this song before. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice try, but you haven't supplied any sound logic yet. All the excuses supplied so far have failed the "have a quick look at the rest of the article and see if they hold water" test. Eff Won (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Enough already, This has "flogging a dead horse" written all over it. If and when someone agrees with you, then this "discussion" can continue. Until then, it's dead in the water. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

To go back to Eff Won's original statment: "I came to the article looking for the grid places for today's Belgian GP, and clicked on the calendar in the contents list."

Why would you not click on the heading that says "Results" if you were looking for the results of qualifying for the Belgian Grand Prix? What is a calendar going to tell you about grid positions? The link to the race report is where it belongs, in the Results section. Just because you happened to look in the wrong place does not make it something that needs immediate fixing.

"Hello, I'm new here"

And we're experienced here. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bite the newcomer, but you, obviously not knowing the past discussions over this very thing amongst a variety of editors, made your attempt to improve, but were reverted based on consensus. However, why would you then, despite being told not to do that, continue to do so, again knowing full well that you are new here? Not only that, but continuing to edit war with other editors until your point of view stuck, and demanding that the consensus discussion be reopened because you are still not satisfied.

I suggest you take a step back. You have a concern, fine: discuss it. Demands and edit wars will get you nowhere. Further, once a discussion finally manages to spring up, calling those that disagree with you as illogical or making excuses is certainly not going to help your case either, nor is trying to make this into a win-loss scenario. Just simply be aware that this specific topic has a history, and many editors have discussed it in the past. We are not going to magically do away with that standard simply because you think you've solved a logical conundrum.

So to keep it simple: Calm down. You're new here, you have some things to learn. The5₉ (Talk) 09:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, perhaps I was a bit hasty. I hadn't anticipated the level of passion that existed here about what I assumed was an oversight. I apologize to all concerned. I didn't realize that there was a history here.

I hadn't thought to look at the "results" section for the starting positions for a race that hadn't started. I imagined the results would only be for the race itself, and so filled in after the race finished.

Bottom line: I still think a link from the calendar to the specific GP would be useful and I found a policy which I think supports my concern. In Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Linking, in the "Link specificity" section, it says: "Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link: it will generally contain more focused information, as well as links to more general topics." So, the topic of the rows in question being the specific GP taking place on that date should link to the specific GP article, and it will in turn link to the general one. Makes sense, no?

Eff Won (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Car 10 Exclusion

In the constructors standings table it says the result at the Italian GP for car 10 is EX. I am aware that this is correct for Romain Grosjean in the drivers standings table, as he is excluded, but Lotus are still allowed to run somebody else (presumably 3rd driver Jérôme d'Ambrosio), as it explains in the signed teams and drivers table. Therefore, the result is not EX for Lotus. Sas1998 (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I would also argue that Grosjean himself should not be listed as "EX" in the drivers' table. He will nevr sit in the car over the Monza weekend, so that space if best left blank. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly he will not sit in his car because he is excluded. That is the reason and it should be mentioned in the drivers' table. FinnishF1Fan (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking back over some of the other pages where drivers have been excluded from the race, it appears that the unwritten definition of an exclusion is when a driver is formally removed from the results of a race after that same race has been run. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) He is not excluded, he is banned. It doesn't matter how many editors don't understand the difference, "EX" is the wrong terminology to use in this case. It so happens that there is nothing in the key to show a ban because it's not a result in a strict sense. It's a results table, and Grosjean will have no result for Italy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

By way of an explanation, a driver/car is excluded (EX) if he is thrown out of the event between Friday practice and the race (now very rare). If he is thrown out after the race has started, he is DSQ. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Grosjean, like Schumacher in 1994, should be labelled as "SUSP" or "BAN". --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is under way here about that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Redundant column in calendar table

OK, so there's opposition to the idea of adding useful hyperlinks from the specific race rows in the calendar table to the specific races, and no current support for it. What about removing one of the two columns giving, effectively, the same data then? The "Race Title" and the "Grand Prix" columns could be merged into one and the generic GP could be linked to from the resultant single column, thus a redundant column would be removed. Eff Won (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

For the exact reasoning that you stated in your intent to edit the article in the first place. As some Grands Prix are not in English and thus not in a name easy to recognize for casual users, both are listed for their ease. The5₉ (Talk) 06:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Calendar table links again

I thought the reasons given by Prisonermonkeys for removing the links to specific GPs from the calendar table were unlikely, especially given the poor level of compliance with many of the Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines of many aspects of this article. I had a recollection that I'd seen the specific GPs limked from the calendar table in previous season articles, so I went on a little investigative journey. What I found was that not only that those links did exist in the 2011 season article, but in the 2010 article too. That was they did exist, until June 11, 2012 when a certain Prisonermonkeys, visited both of those articles in turn, and deleted all of those valuable links using the same astonishing (given the policy compliancy state of both of those articles to) edit summaries: "there is no need for this - links to report pages are all throughout the article". In other words; deliberate systematic destruction of content to the detriment of the articles. I have restored the information in both of those articles and I plan to add it to this one too now that there is clearly actually no good sound reason not to. Eff Won (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Start-Class Formula One articles
• Low-importance Formula One articles