Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 19

Formula One Project‑class

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

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You left yourself out! Well done indeed for spearheading the effort, a very worthwhile effort. Pyrope 20:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just quickly *ducking* out of retirement here. Great job you've done in improving the article 4u1e. Just for reference here is the version before the cleanup process, and here is the current version. The diff shows a huge improvement in the article. Good work all round. D.M.N. (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Why's my name there? My version was the one that caused all the problems in the first place. :-P --

Review this GA review!

21:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Because, like the rest of us, you contributed some of the edits between the before and after versions. And don't be hard on your original work - it wouldn't have been FA in the first place without it and a lot of the changes are due to higher, or at least different, standards now being applied. 4u1e (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't do all that much! Just referenced a couple of things. Still, it's nice to be appreciated! Readro (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggest to keep eyes on

GrandPrix.com had posted the rumor earlier today, citing many Honda team members looking for other jobs. I'd say nothing should be changed until there's something official, but do agree to keep an eye out. The359 (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's a given that they're selling up, so there's bound to be a few people adding changes before the official confirmation. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The BBC article says Honda are to make an offical announcement at 5am GMT tomorrow. Schumi555 (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Should Honda be removed from the teams list? (has been removed from the 2009 F1 season article!). As far as I can tell, the team is for sale, and has not officially withdrawn yet. Mjroots (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a status quo should be maintained for a while. Honda has withdrawn from F1 but there is still indication that the team might contend. As long as there is confirmation on team withdrawal, things should be kept as they are. A mention of withdrawal on the 2009 season and Honda article is sufficient until further news comes out. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 09:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The team might contend, but not as Honda. I think we can safely remove Honda from the list. Readro (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If the team still basically exists, then it should still be on the list. The problem is what to call it, if it isn't Honda any more. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It will still be Honda up until the point it is sold or dismembered. Simple. --Falcadore (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

For all we know the people buying it will buy the rights to the Honda F1 name or a billion other things. The team currently had a contract to run next year and until such time as things are concrete, we shouldn't be trying to be a news service. We should reflect the stable facts not the breaking news. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Honda F1 will not compete next season. Having them in an article saying that they will compete is contrary to published facts. Readro (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) I understand your concern. However if we remove Honda's name, what should be the team called? We can't just leave it blank or say "Unnamed F1 team". I think to wait a while isn't exactly a bad idea. In any case, we are detailing Honda's departure and not in any way misinforming the readers. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 12:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Honda have stated they are not competing next season. Whether or not the team that is Honda F1 is competing next season can only be known either next year or when someone says 'It is dead Jim'. At this very moment Honda still have a racing team that has a contract to run next year in F1. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The precedent on Wikipedia is that a change of name and ownership means a new team. Honda may be out, but equally, no replacement is in yet. Take out Honda and add in any replacement if that occurs. A contract to compete is not equivalent to competing. We know that in the guise of Honda F1, the team will not be competing. To leave them in is wrong as they will not compete. To add "Unknown replacement team" is wrong, as that may not happen. To take out Honda F1 now and wait for a replacement to be announced is the only solution which is not factually incorrect. Readro (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

But there is no statement that indicates the team is dead. It has only lost its primary promoter. Such judgments as to whether the team would come back or not is inappropriate at the moment. A team should be removed from the competing only when that team's withdrawal (and not the promoter's withdrawal) is officially declared and FIA has acknowledged it. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I propose listing "ex-Honda F1 Team" on the tables. It shows that the team still has an entry for 2009, and that the team is no longer "Honda". If no buyer comes, then simply remove the entry from the chart, because three months from now, the team will actually withdraw their entry. The359 (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely the team is honda until it is bought? I mean, the sale may not go ahead. Honda may change their minds, the new people may pay to keep the Honda name for some reason etc etc, we should wait until it is the fact before making it so (We don't, based on our conclusion from announcements, put car numbers on competators until the official announcement from the FIA for example). I realise the sport travels at 200+ mph, lets not edit at the same speed. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Honda wont change their minds, Honda wont be involved. What we have to go on is Honda's announcement. Yes, the team is still Honda, but I think people will be able to understand "ex-Honda" better. It's honestly something borrowed from US Navy use. Renamed ships are known as "ex-" for their previous name. The359 (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The team is still named Honda. If it wasn't so you wouldn't have news items such as these. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 14:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

But it wont be, regardless of whether they find a buyer or not. I realize they are officially still Honda, but I think this is a common sense move. The359 (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Like Narson said above, this is car numbers all over again. Common sense vs. official confirmation. I'd root for official confirmation. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 14:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you go for official confirmation, why are we throwing out stuff about "Honda might change their minds" and such BS? The only confirmation is that HONDA wont be on the 2009 grid. The only confirmation is that "the team" might be. The359 (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Honda Motor Corp have said that in the future they won't be supporting the company (Honda F1 and Honda...Racing Development is it? The engine chappies). It has not yet come to pass. It is currently news worthy but not really concrete. If the government says it will end world hunger by 2010, we don't announce they ended world hunger. Once they sell the team or shut it down, then we can all run around. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The source says Honda wont be participating in 2009. To assume anything else doesn't belong here. The359 (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Another definitive statement [1]: Honda will pull out, team would stay afloat for three months. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at a source from the BBC that says the Honda are hoping to preserve the team and that the legal being that is the team will still exist (They make reference to contracts still being held for next year which means the legal being of the company will be intact). Just wait for the sale to be sorted out then we can update all the wiki formatting once we know the structure of the sale etc.. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Or, we take Honda off the list now and if an entity called "Honda F1" miraculously rises up like a Phoenix and intends to race next year, then we add it back in? Honda have confirmed they are not racing, we can't assume that they might be. Readro (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, Honda Motor Corp have confirmed they will be selling Honda F1 Racing and not backing it (though I have seen some indications they have offered to supply engines and winter budget?). Honda F1 Racing have announced they are seeking new buyers. Honda F1 Racing has not announced it is pulling out of jack diddly. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia precedent, this will be a new team, not Honda Racing F1. Readro (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)Honda might not be racing, but the team is still alive at the moment, as said in the source above. Unless the team is dissolved or formally removed from FIA roaster, it should be included in season article. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Only upon a sale will the team return. If it returns it will technically be as a new team. The entity known as "Honda Racing F1" on paper will not return. It should be removed. Until a sale happens, the team should be removed and only on a sale should it be reinstated. Competing is not equivalent to holding a licence to compete. Readro (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

But the team hasn't officially left yet!! Only its promoter has left. The team is going to work on and look for another buyer. If it fells to do so in stipulated time, then the team would officially be dissolved. Read the sources please. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have read all the sources. The team now known as "Honda Racing F1" will not return as "Honda Racing F1". When this happened with Jaguar, the team didn't appear as "Jaguar Racing but with a new owner", it appeared as "Red Bull Racing", a new entity on paper. Red Bull Racing is officially a different constructor to that of Jaguar Racing. Readro (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) Fine, but removing the team now is acknowledging the fact that the team (regardless of its name) does not exist, which is completely wrong in light of the facts. And it would remain Honda Racing F1 until new buyer is announced or it is officially closed. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it is acknowledging the fact that there will be no entry known as "Honda Racing F1" next season, which is completely right in light of the facts. Readro (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've yet to see a statement from Honda F1 that the team isn't racing next year...the summation that the team won't be called Honda Racing F1 is likely correct, it is also however crystal balling the terms of a future contract. It might. It might not. Who knows? If an investor does pick up the Honda F1 racing it will be the same team/same company next year, just different named. Until we know that name and have an article for it, why remove Honda F1 from the list of competators? --Narson ~ Talk • 16:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Because contractually, after the change of owner it will be a different competitor. Readro (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, after the sale it will be. But the sale hasn't happened yet. Really, as long as we footnote the current status of the team, what else can we sensibly do than leave it in under its current name. The debate's long enough already, so I don't intend to carry it on - I just wanted to make my view clear! :) 4u1e (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a footnote is the way forward here. Pyrope 18:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've recently been doing some work on team/constructor results tables and I notice there's a fair amount of inconsistency. Specifically:

• Alignment of driver names. Of the 97 teams/constructors which have "modern style" results tables:

• 71 have the drivers' names centred within the column (per the standard table format)
• 26 (including 7 of the 2008 constructors) have the drivers' names left-aligned

• Flags next to the driver names:

• 55 don't have flagicons next to the drivers' names (per the standard table format)
• 42 (including 8 of the 2008 constructors) do

• Format of the driver names:

• 88 have the drivers' names in full (per the standard table format)
• 7 (including
  Williams and Toyota
  ) only show the surname
• 2 (
  Renault
  ) show the full name on first occurrence, then just the surname thereafter
• 1 (Toleman) shows the surname + first initial

On the assumption that we would like all the tables to have a consistent format(?), what's the preferred format? Personally, I'd prefer to see the names left-aligned. I'm ambivalent about flags. A couple of other points while I'm here:

• Seven of the results tables (those for
  Token and Frank Williams Racing Cars
  ) have the Chassis, Engine and Tyres columns combined, as a means of reducing the overall table width. What do we think about that? Good thing? (let's do it elsewhere?) Bad thing? (revert to standard table format?) Or something else?
• Should we include "Points" and "WCC" columns (per the standard table format) for constructors who only participated before the introduction of the WCC in 1958? Currently most such constructors, e.g. AFM, Alta, etc don't have Points and WCC columns; whereas Bugatti does have the columns but also has a footnote explaining that the WCC wasn't awarded before 1958.
• What should we do when we don't know what tyres were used?

• Include the column (per the standard table format) but leave it blank, e.g. Tecno
• Include the column and populate it with "?", as done in Aston Martin
• Just leave the column out altogether, as done in
  ENB

Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

My personal thoughts:

• • • Driver name alignment: Centered
    • Flagicons by driver names: Yes
    • Driver name format: Full name
    • Combining table columns mentioned above: Yes, should become standard
    • Points + WCC: Points should be there, with a footnote explaining that the points didn't mean anything in a constructors championship. No WCC column.
    • Tyre column: A '?'.

Cadan ap Tomos 12:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We have some articles which differs for reasons that led to use F2 rules in 1952 season, Im trying to find exact info what was the main reason for that, was is that organisation just changed rules or was it forced to change rules because some stables finished racing. I have always though the rules were changed before eg Alfa stopped racing...also how Ferrari just happened to be only team to have modern F2 car at the time... --— Typ932^{T | C}  09:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mike Lang's Grand Prix! Volume 1 says: "At the end of 1951 Alfa Romeo realised that to beat the Ferraris in the coming season a new and more powerful car was needed. In order to finance development costs a government subsidy had been sought but without success and as a result the team reluctantly announded their withdrawal from Grand Prix racing. This, together with the demise of the Lago-Talbot organisation, disintegration of the Simca-Gordini partnership and continual failure of the B.R.M. project left only Ferrari with competitive Formula 1 cars. Consequently race organisers in the main turned to Formula 2 which, in turn, led to the F.I.A. agreeing that the World Championship series would follow suit for the coming season. This seemed a far better arrangement for everyone. Constructors could use the Formula 2 cars as the logical proving ground for the new 2.5 litre/750cc unsupercharged formula due to come into effect in 1954 and, at the same time, there would be at least some opposition to Ferrari." DH85868993 (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Sheldon's A Record of Grand Prix and Voiturette Racing Volume 5 says: "At the end of 1951 ... Alfa-Romeo decided to withdraw from single-seater racing for the time being. Ferrari were well placed ... The San Remo Maserati was quite out-of-date, Talbot were equally uncompetitive and short of money as well. Gordini ... were hardly on par with the unblown Ferraris. The only conceivable competitive opposition to Ferrari was BRM with their fascinating V-16 supercharged machine of great complexity. ... The organisers of World Championship qualifying events ... held off from specifying the Formula that their races would be run to pending the early season non-championship races. If the races were competitive affairs then the World Championship would proceed as planned. If not, then some other solution would have to be sought. The result of this was that the Valentino GP gained an importance out of proprtion to its normal status. In the event things took a disastrous turn when the race was a total flop with Ferrari being, almost literally in a class of their own. ... The results of BRM's failure to appear were devastating. Oragnisers could see immediately that their precious races would be just a bore with only Ferrari competing. Race after race was converted from Formula 1 into Formula 2 and soon the FIA announced that the World Championship would be competed for in Formula 2 cars." DH85868993 (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Grand Prix The Complete Guide is similar, "Alfa Romeo, unable to fund a new car, withdrew from racing, leaving Ferrari as the only serious Formula 1 contender. This led organizers to run their races for Formula 2, for 2 litre unsupercharged engines, which meant larger fields and a greater variety of cars, even if the victories all went to Ferrari." Schumi555 (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Plan didn't work too good though.... 4u1e (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What are our views on sections like the one linked above. In my view, I think the car launches section borders

The cars being a part of the season need a mention in the article and I guess this is covered well in

teams and drivers table. I'm on the fence regarding adding such information in the form of prose. Couple of questions too: What do you mean by "main teams" and why bring the discussion here? ^LeaveSleaves _talk

13:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm only on about the "New car launches" table, and none of the other ones. "Main teams" for instance Ferrari, McLaren, BMW or try and put it into prose so it is better. A table like that means nothing to the layman "so what, they launched then, who cares?" I brought it here instead of the 2009 talkpage because there's similar tables in the

2009 articles. D.M.N. (talk

) 16:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm with you on removing the tables. I also don't find it necessary to mention this in the prose since it's a rather minor part of the long season. Launch information is best covered in the car article itself. This is okay with 2008 and earlier seasons. As for 2009, I can't make up my mind. Since the car articles yet to be created and this information might be of some interest at the moment, I feel the information should be maintained till all launches are over. Of course, this might be seen by some as recentism. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 16:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see the table of launch dates and locations go from the season article - but you'll probably have a fight on your hands with various passing and anon editors. 4u1e (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep these tables. It is information that can't really be made into prose, as it would be too 'robotic', if you get my drift. Lets just keep it as it is. Cadan ap Tomos 15:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

The article was kept, and before I got a chance to do any major work myself! Thanks to

AlexJ. Readro (talk

) 10:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What was it kept as? Chubbennaitor 13:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It was kept as a Good Article... D.M.N. (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thought I may as well point out: 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix is currently up for FA. Any comments that could be added (with relevance and reason, of course) would be very useful. Apterygial

Thank you. The Newsletter is thankful of your help. Chubbennaitor 17:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? What did I do? Apterygial 22:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he is referring to your general efforts in improving the 2008 race reports, on behalf of those editors who maintain the WPF1 newsletter. The thought is seconded on my part. =D.--

(talk)

23:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Thank you. Incidentally, don't think you have to keep putting my race reports on the newsletter as the selected article every month. Just most of the time :). Apterygial 23:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I third the thanks on behalf of the newsletter... Cadan ap Tomos 00:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. My only real intention is to improve Wikipedia's coverage in an area I am passionate about. I am terrible at the technical aspects of F1, so the sporting side is where I am most comfortable. Once

my insane idea nears fruition I shall endeavour to assist at the newsletter, though as it stands my Wikipedia time is used elsewhere. (I realise that comment is far too eloquent). Apterygial

01:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The quality of this article is very terrible. Please help for expand the article. Thanks. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 04:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to it. There are a lot of dud articles in the 2008 season out there at the moment, and I can't work on them all at once (I already have four articles at various stages of production). I'll get there, but not for a few weeks at least. Apterygial 05:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The quality of the article just about matches the quality of the race ;). It will get rewritten eventually (as part of

AlexJ (talk

) 20:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• My second problem does not apply directly to Formula One or this WikiProject, but I think the two go hand in hand. Has anyone besides User:Manipe added references or links from ManipeF1.com? Again, let me clarify that I do not find Manipe a bad editor and his contributions to the project have certainly been helpful, but I cannot help but feel that there is a glaring conflict of interest. Edits such as this seem common in nearly every recent race report, while nearly every other edit from Manipe to Wikipedia that I've looked through has been referenced by a news item or statistic from his own website (such as this). Even if ManipeF1.com is a reliable sources, is this not borderline self-promotion?

I may be missing something incredibly obvious here in regards to Manipe's edits and the use of his website, so anyone feel free to knock me upside the head with a cluebat, but this is just something that has irked me and I needed to know what others thought. The359 (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that you've brought it up, I must admit I've found ManipeF1.com a little unreliable myself. I, on the whole, agree that it is not a reliable source. I don't mind it being used for lower-class articles - but I don't think it would ever pass as reliable on an FA. For those that remember ChicaneF1 when I had

copy-vios having taken place here - just the fact that there's a COI involved with the editing which could be linking to unreliable material. D.M.N. (talk

) 21:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out, I have pointed Manipe to this discussion so that he is aware. The359 (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with D.M.N. here - there is no information on who's behind the site, who writes its content etc. so it would not be possible to justify it as being reliable at FAC. A sharp-eyed reviewer would possibly flag it up as an issue at GA-level as well. Where an alternative (quality) source is available it should be used.

AlexJ (talk

) 23:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm yet to see anything on ManipeF1 that isn't already available from the FIA website or Formula1.com. Apterygial 23:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

First, thanks The359. The issue has also been bugging me for quite long and I wanted to bring this up. I recall similar protest raised earlier in this project, but I'm too lazy to go into archives now.

As pointed out earlier, ManipeF1 does not provide some unique information that is not present elsewhere. Plus, it is unlikely to be seen well by GA or FA reviewers. In terms of reliable sources, two of the most important criteria is sourcing of the information presented and identity of writer/publisher. The sites disclaimer speaks for itself in this case.

Manipe F1 is run independently and is a non-profit organization. Manipe F1 will not be held liable for publishing unreliable, misleading, incomplete or inaccurate information.

It is also necessary to point out that the site also fails

WP:ELNO #1, 2 and possibly 4. As for the case of COI, a simplest solution could be to ask the said user to stop inserting the links. Considering the user's other valid contributions, it would in bad faith to say that his/her primary intentions are to promote the website. ^LeaveSleaves _talk

02:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be assumed that Manipe is doing this out of promotion, either as a primary, secondary, or any goal. My belief is mostly that he doesn't believe he's doing anything wrong by adding links from his own website. The359 (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Folks,

Firstly, thank you The359 for alerting me to this discussion, and secondly, I must apologise for the delay in replying to your concerns.

To begin with, I want to deal with the question of reliability. Could somebody please inform me as to what exactly a Wikipedia-defined reliable source is? What exactly makes autosport.com or itv-f1.com or f1.com a reliable source? I also have questions aimed at two particular sources which have been included in various articles.

• The first is statsf1.com. I've seen many links to this website as a reference for some of the records, and I'm just curious as to why this website is considered reliable since it is clearly not as big/popular as many of the other sites that are listed as references.
• The second is f1technical.net. On the newly-created History of Formula One regulations, f1technical is listed many times over as a reference for most of the rule changes. For example, under 2008 it says that wind tunnel and CFD work was restricted, which I believe was amended before 2008 and not actually imposed. Secondly, under 2009 is says that tyre warmers are banned, which is untrue, as they will be banned in 2010 instead. If these are the errors creeping in for 2008/2009, why should we trust the previous years that are referenced to f1technical? Whether or not this site is Wikipedia-relaible, this website is definitely not reliable in the conventional sense of the word.

(Remebering that I am only dealing with the issue of reliability) why would the above sites be considered reliable, while Manipe F1 is not? Particularly pertaining to f1technical references, surely it would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia if those references were replaced by references containing the correct information. If someone were to replace some of those references with Manipe F1 references, why should those references be changed to a different site, especially since the old references have stayed in place presumably since the content was first written?

If the aforementioned websites are not reliable under Wikipedia guidelines, then why can they be kept as references in articles when Manipe F1 is purged from all articles simply on the basis of unreliability? Surely if the above websites are not reliable, then their inclusion as references must be questioned, regardless of who added them in the first place.

Manipe F1 is in regular contact with the FIA, teams and their suppliers/sponsors verifying information and data in order to be as correct and reliable as possible both for news articles and race/testing results and data. Manipe F1 also has sophisticated error-finding techniques in an attempt to find and solve any problems which may arise, mostly aimed at race results. Like any publication or website, errors can creep in, and Manipe F1 invests a lot of time in making sure such errors are kept to an absolute minimum. Humans make errors, as do computers, and even a vague knowledge of statistical theory will tell you that erradicating all such errors is impossible if a human input is involved, regardless of the safeguards or checks you put in place.

I am not 'picking' on the two sites above, but merely using them as an example. I am sure that there are many more sites like them that are cited in Wikipedia F1 articles that are unreliable, in the conventional sense of the word (not that statsf1 or f1technical are fundamentally so).

Again, I would like to remind you all that I am dealing with the issue of reliability. I will deal with the other issues later. I look forward to reading your responses to my reply above.

Kind regards, Manipe (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Just as you Manipe, we are not 'picking' on a particular website. If you feel there are other questionable sources being used, please bring this to community's attention (preferably in a separate discussion).

Now for the reliability. Autosport.com, just like major news sites, has time and again passed the criteria for a reliable secondary source. It comes from well known and trusted magazine publisher and has authors who are well recognized in terms of their knowledge in the area of F1. F1.com stands somewhere between a primary and secondary source and can be trusted for reliability mostly because there is clarity about its publisher. I personally don't prefer itvf1.com and I've heard other editors complaining about its factual accuracy as well. But again a clear known and trusted publisher and some renowned authors significantly falls in its favor.

Now as for ManipeF1, there is no clarity on its publisher, authors and your claims on its factual accuracy. It thus fails criteria for secondary sources. Being a tertiary source once again has significant verifiability criteria and are to be used only in cases when secondary sources are not available.

For details on these terms, see

WP:PSTS. ^LeaveSleaves _talk

13:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick question for Manipe, as you say you are in contact with the FIA. On this page, how did the race get listed as the I SingTel Singapore Grand Prix? And on this page, why was the race listed as the X Petronas Malaysian Grand Prix? These are both clearly wrong. Readro (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

To back what LeaveSleaves states, we can't go on "Manipe F1 is in regular contact with the FIA, teams and their suppliers/sponsors verifying information and data in order to be as correct and reliable as possible both for news articles and race/testing results and data. Manipe F1 also has sophisticated error-finding techniques in an attempt to find and solve any problems which may arise, mostly aimed at race results. Like any publication or website, errors can creep in, and Manipe F1 invests a lot of time in making sure such errors are kept to an absolute minimum." simply because you say it. I can say I have contact with the FIA, but there's no real way to prove it,so I can't use that as justification to make edits on Wikipedia. The359 (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I fully understand now that Manipe F1 is not considered a reliable resource, however, how is it that we use autosport.com and f1.com as references, and link to the sites when it is clearly against the respective websites' terms and conditions? And as regards The359's comments, it seems to me that whether or not I can prove Manipe F1 in regular contact with the FIA is absolutely pointless and would not make Manipe F1 a reliable source. It's my interpretation that a reliable source is automatically a source that has been written by a person who has been notified as a respected journalist or a journalist of a respected publication. It seems vague to be frank, but obviously there must be some standard. But surely the need to find a reliable source cannot violate a website's terms and conditions? Manipe (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

As regards Readro's comment, I would like to point out that no longer do new Grands Prix's official names include the edition of the race, therefore there is no official designation and so the race number is open to interpretation. As regards the Malaysian Grand Prix, most races were not held under Formula 1 regs, so I would not consider them to have been a Malaysian Grand Prix as such, nor were any Malaysian Grands Prix included in the world championship at any point, up until 1999. As regards the Singapore Grand Prix, it's my understanding that none of the races prior to 2008 were run to F1 regulations, so I cannot see how it should be counted as an F1 GP. As I said, the issue is open to different interpretations, and just because Manipe F1 decided to do it differently to Wikipedia's editors doesn't make it wrong. Manipe (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Were the terms of service binding on the user (They arn't) there still wouldn't be a problem. We do not use the material in a manner that violates the rights of the authors. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Both websites' terms clearly state that you cannot link to their websites without permission, and F1.com even explicitly forbids deep linking. Why is it that we can just disregard these terms? Unfortunately I don not have a background in Law, so I cannot be fully sure of the terms' enforcement. Manipe (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you're going to have to link us to where they say that? The359 (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. F1.com, see 'Links' section, and autosport.com see paragraph 6.2. Manipe (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I think this is a question that will have to be taken to a higher authority... The359 (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Silence is not consent, at least in British law. You can access the site without ever accessing TOS, you never have to overtly state your acceptace. They can, I am sure, block your access citing that, but not because of some legal breach by you, but because they have the right to put whatever the want in their block list. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you a

reliable source? :) Manipe (talk

) 23:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable or not there is still a COI issue yes? --Falcadore (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The intention of this thread is to evaluate credibility of ManipeF1. If there is need of discussion on usage of other external links or references, please open a separate thread. Now that Manipe has accepted that ManipeF1.com is not a valid external link or reliable source, is there an agreement on the link's removal from the articles? Also per Falcadore, unless Manipe agrees not to add the links again, we should focus on the COI part of the discussion. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 10:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

LeaveSleaves, as far as I'm concerned, me adding the links are central to the COI issue, so I'll deal with those concerns now. The only reason I add links to Manipe F1 on Wikipedia is either (a) to add something to the article which would otherwise be impossible to show on that particular article and to increase a reader's understanding of the topic at hand, or (b) to cite a source of information that I add or change in a particular article. As regards (b), I feel it is better to add a source rather than use a ^{[citation needed]} tag, especially since the information is there and ready to be accessed. I have stated previously that I never object to having Manipe F1 links changed to other websites, whoever makes the change, and I am fully aware that many of the links I add as references are changed to other websites. I am unaware of any time that a Manipe F1 link has been changed and that I subsequently reverted back to Manipe F1. I have certainly not done it in the recent past, but I may have done so much earlier when I started editing Wikipedia, and if I did, I apologise. I never change existing references to Manipe F1 references, as I believe that would be blatant promotion. I believe it is better for the encyclopedia as a whole to have a reference to a particular piece of information rather than have a ^{[citation needed]} tag, and force other editors to spend time searching for a particular reference or alternatively, make readers unsure as to the article's contents or its reliability.

As regards (a), it's my understanding that external links are used on Wikipedia in order to offer more material for readers about the subject at hand as opposed to references which are used to verify information in the article. I admit that I regularly added links to race results on race report pages, however this is done to offer additional information to the readers. The vast majority of these links have been removed and replaced with a link to the official FIA result, which includes just the race classification and fastest laps, without me reverting to a Manipe F1 link. The link to Manipe F1 includes much more information than the FIA page, such as grid position, cause of retirement, gaps between fastest laps, pitstop information, race leaders and much more. None of this information is displayed on the FIA page, and the FIA page is only marginally different to the information on the Wikipedia article. The FIA has a lapchart that it publishes after each race, depicting the position of each driver at the end of each lap. Manipe F1 also publishes a similar race lapchart, and the chart adds to the understanding of the race for the readers. I'm sure you all consult a race lapchart before writing a race report. However, Manipe F1 is the only free website (to my knowledge) to publish (what we call) a leader chart, depicting the gaps between the leading drivers at the end of every lap. This graph, although not essential, adds greatly to a reader's understanding of the race, as you can see how far ahead a driver is, something which the lapchart does not, and cannot, show. This graph also complements a race report well, as you can easily see what gap was between drivers at the end of a certain lap. It clearly shows the progression of the race in a way that would be almost impossible to describe accurately and concisely in prose. I therefore believe that it is to the benefit of the encyclopedia and its users that people have easy access to these graphs, and other race information on the same webpage. If however, there is another website that publishes such material, namely the 'leader chart' graph, please let me know. Manipe (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Please understand what exactly

COI stands for. The point of discussion is to see if you are in anyway associated with ManipeF1 and is your editing influenced by such association. And please note that explaining the website's extensive benefits is not exactly helping your cause. Majority of contributors here at one time or other visited the site and know what it has to offer. As for the detailed report including time gaps etc., it is an unnecessary statistical information that not many are interested in. Moreover, the reason any of the sites do not give such extensive data is because reproduction and use of such data without FIA's permission is illegal and such websites may face action. ^LeaveSleaves _talk

14:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think speculating on what is and isn't a copyright infringment on an external site is of any real relevance for this discussion. I don't see how any of us (except Manipe) are in a position to know if the data is licenced or not.

AlexJ (talk

) 16:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not speculating on anything. I'm just trying to point out a probable reason why there isn't such detailed statistics on other sites, as argued by Manipe. LeaveSleaves _talk 16:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate to sound nagging here but is there a consensus on removal or non-removal of the links? I just don't want this discussion to grow stale and move to archives, only to be restarted a couple of months later from the scratch, proving the effort so far to be useless. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see the need for "mass removal" from articles, if they are in there at the moment, fine. However, I would advise Manipe in the future not to insert links from his own website as this is a COI. No need for mass removal though. And yes, IMO, ManipeF1 is not suitable for GA/FA articles (I don't think it's referenced in any GA/FA articles, although I maybe wrong). D.M.N. (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there's no need to remove it from Wikipedia, especially as there are numerous websites we reference in lower articles that theoretically don't belong. I also agree it shouldn't be in GA/FA articles (I found only one instance of it in a GA, but I can'r recall which one). And I finally agree that Manipe shouldn't really be adding the link anymore, or anyone for that matter as we should be trying to use better sources for everything, even if it's not GA/FA. The359 (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being absent from this discussion for the past few days, but I've been busy with the relaunch of the website. As regards the discussion on COI, I would like to quote the

Wikipedia article

, which says: "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount." In editing Wikipedia, and adding links in race reports to the Manipe F1 results page, I am absolutely certain that the interests of Wikipedia are remaining paramount. As you have discussed, it is your opinion that it is not my aim on Wikipedia to promote Manipe F1, and you are all 100% right. I would do things a lot differently if I were editing to promote Manipe F1, however, my primary aim is to improve the encyclopedia, and the F1 articles in particular. As I said previously, I have never added links 'just for the sake of it', but instead I add links to provide clarity, or to give a user an avenue to improve their understanding of the subject.

I'd like to give just one example. At the Italian Grand Prix, I'm sure you all remember Lewis Hamilton opting for a long first stint, in the hope of just stopping once, but ultimately having to stop a second time for tyres when the rain didn't return. Following the race, it was said, even by Lewis himself, that Hamilton could have won had he not had to stop for fresh tyres. Directly after the race, the information wasn't available to prove or disprove this theory, but with the 'leader chart' graph, it can clearly be seen that he would not have beaten Vettel out of the pits after the German pitted for the second time. Other than for the graph, it would have been extremely difficult to disprove the theory, and would have involved considerable number-crunching. A picture, in this case, did indeed tell a thousand words. This is just one of many cases in which the link I added would have added to a user's understanding, and in my opinion is a worthy inclusion as an external link.

I have read through the

WP:ELNO. On the COI side of things, as I reasoned above, I believe that the articles benefit from having a link to detailed race results, which can add to a user's understanding of the subject. It's a very similar argument for giving fans access to telemetry (or simlar) data during races - not everyone will want it, but for those who do, it's a fantastic addition, and adds greatly to their understanding and enjoyment. It's not an aim of mine to promote Manipe F1, and I'm editing to the benefit of Wikipedia and its users. I personally cannot think of a more legitimate reason to add an external link... Manipe (talk

) 15:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my first post, the link clearly falls under ELNO #1 and 2. Please note that the so called "leader chart" that you are advocating comes under "unverifiable research". You'd need third-party sources that should verify the accuracy and relevance of such a chart. Also note that others have stated that you do make other valuable contributions. But since it is clear that you are associated with the website, it'd nice if you don't add such external links, thus clearing you of any doubt. LeaveSleaves 18:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how the link to race results falls under ELNO #1... The resource is unique in the very fact that there is no other resource to which we can link to under Wikipedia guidelines, and the majority of the information will not be included in the Wikipedia articles, regardless of whether it becomes an FA or not. As regards your assertion that the 'leaderchart' (which is only one small part of the service that Manipe F1 offers) is unverifiable research, the charts can be easily checked against the corresponding chart at FORIX, or in the 'Formula 1 Yearbook' published by Chronosports, whoever has access to those resources. I also don't understand your belief that the charts are not relevant to the races. One could argue that qualifying laptimes are irrevelant also, but they are included within the articles.

I understand that Manipe F1 links cannot be included in FAs due to Manipe F1 not being a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines, but not every F1 article is an FA, nor does an article start out as an FA. Why can the link not be there in the article's youth to inform people of various other data from the race, beyond what Wikipedia can offer. Is that not the function of external links - to offer further reading material for the reader? I'd also be interested to hear the views of other editors on this matter. Manipe (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder of the above unanswered comment. Manipe (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Simply, you are not allowed to add any links to ManipeF1 because it constitutes a conflict of interest. If there is any external link for a race article, it should be to a page on an official website, namely Formula1.com or the FIA's website. Readro (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

References that are not considered reliable sources should not be used, period. An FA means the article has been checked amongst Wikipedia's policies and rules (amongst other things). That does not mean the same policies and guidelines don't apply to start-class articles. They should be followed for any quality of article.

AlexJ (talk

) 21:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just found myself creating the over-ly interesting Lola T95/30 - which of course never actually raced! Now was there a Lola T94/30 car? I know there was the Lola T93/30 (that raced in the 1993 season), but was there a T94/30 version.

This source says next to 1995: "1996 Lola-Ford T95/30 Another failure after the Lola-Ferrari T94/30 disaster. Tested by Allan McNish. More..." However, a comment on the Atlas F1 forums suggests that there was no such thing as T94/30. A Google search only comes up with 112 hits, which suggests that there wasn't a T94/30.

Also, are cars that never raced - do they actually have notability? IMO, they are notable purely because they didn't race - that's why they are "infamous" I guess. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The notability criteria is that the subject has recieved "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - that is, if you can find references from acceptable sources that cover the article, it is notable.

AlexJ (talk

) 14:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a typo on the 8W site. The Lola-Ferrari T94/30 presumably means the Lola-Ferrari T93/30 which was dire and raced by the BMS Scuderia Italia team in F1 in 1993. Readro (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Strange, because it's also noted here as an entry on the 1994 season with Badoer and Alboreto driving. D.M.N. (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a provisional 1994 entry list, before the team pulled out. Presumably they guessed that the 1994 car would be called the T94/30 if it was going to be constructed. However it never was. Readro (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I find that list fascinating as it has Alboreto in a Lola/BMS and Williams TD Coulthard in a Pacific. Any background knowledge to back these assertions up? And - how did Alboreto move to Minardi at the last minute? Not sure why Prost is listed at Williams and Senna isn't in at all on that list -- I have no answers for that. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Alboreto (and Badoer) drove Lolas for Scuderia Italia in 1993. Scuderia Italia and Minardi merged at the end of the year, retaining the Minardi name and one driver from each team - which is how Alboreto ended up at Minardi in 1994. Coulthard drove for Pacific in F3000 in 1993, so I guess the expectation/assumption was that he would drive them in F1 the following year. As for Prost and Senna - that's a little more difficult to explain - the page was last updated on 12th October 1993, which is after Prost announced his retirement (at the 1993 Portuguese GP). I don't recall Senna announcing before the end of 1993 that he wouldn't be driving for McLaren in 1994 (as Prost had done in 1989) or exactly when it was confirmed that Senna would drive for Williams in 1994 - perhaps whoever compiled the list just hadn't got around to replacing Prost's name with Senna's yet?

Ah, OK. I don't think there's anything "concrete" then to build an article around for that one then (unless any book sources or anything come flying in!). Thanks guys, D.M.N. (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for final clarification, Lola's own Heritage website lists the T93/30 Formula One car and T95/30 Formula One testbed, but no T94/30, so it's pretty likely there is no such thing. The359 (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this (recently created) page. I think the layout needs to be changed into proper prose, and probably needs a new title. I'd be tempted to AFD it, but there is meaningful prose in there. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

My instinct is to keep it. Although it needs cleaning up, it appears to be fairly comprehensive and well-referenced at first glance.--

(talk)

10:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be too comprehensive. I mean, it's almost like it's just short of us having an article printing the current Formula One rules, all of them. The359 (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it. I had a very brief glance at it, but I think it has the potential to be really useful encyclopedically. Obviously, the references need an overhaul and the section titles need work, but really I think it good be a great article for the project. My first instinct upon seeing it was to move it to

Formula One rule changes since 1950, but it looks like Diniz already did that. No AFD. Apterygial

11:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

What do people think of changing the name of the article to History of Formula One regulations (since it was spawned from the "History" section of the Formula One regulations article, and that's effectively what it's describing). Removing "1950" from the title would also allow scope for the article to cover any changes from 1946-1950 (if there were any). DH85868993 (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I'd agree with that. Apterygial 04:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with DH. D.M.N. (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it. DH85868993 (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well done! And thanks to all that helped get it to FA! :) D.M.N. (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The portal needs an article! Apterygial 02:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? Chubbennaitor 10:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I could have phrased that better, admittedly. The portal has a selected article, but there is none for this month. I don't know the criteria for selection or whatever, so I can't do it. Apterygial 11:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The Portal is only sporadically maintained at the moment - the last few months of the selected article have basically been me choosing an article from the F1 featured content list that hasn't already been featured in the portal, sometimes even before the new month arrives! Thanks for (indirectly) reminding me for this occasion - I have chosen an article you know well as it was the only FA that had not previously been selected for the portal.--

(talk)

16:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that would be the article that would be picked, but I didn't want to be the one to do it. Apterygial 00:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this the same thing the NW does? If so, why not use the one Diniz chooses (If that doesn't already happen). Chubbennaitor 11:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It is slightly different. The portal should choose an article from the current stable of FAs and GAs (with a preference for FAs), while the Newsletter (to my understanding) chooses an article which has been active somehow recently (such as Damon Hill for passing FAR or 08BrazilGP for being PR'ed). Apterygial 00:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Then we change what we choose. Simple.

itor

12:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering if there's a list of Non-championship Grand Prix's anywhere, i.e. races that haven't counted to points? Or do I just have to look through every F1 season in turn, such as the list as the bottom of the 1950 Formula One season?

Also, for the post-1950 Non-championship Grand Prix races, is there a F1 race report template? These are the boxes at the bottom of every Championship race, such as the one at the bottom of the 1968 South African Grand Prix#References. Ste900R (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I decided to make one anyway. Template:F1 NC race report. See how it works on the 1950 Pau Grand Prix. Please feel free to edit it however you want to. Also, does anyone else think it's a good idea to put these in the non-championship races? Perhaps we could make a separate catagory for them? Ste900R (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not bad.

itor

14:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You should just use the normal F1 race report infobox with the line |Type = NC added. See

AlexJ (talk

) 11:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)