Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:13, 2 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

Season report

We've got a bit of a problem here, and I've been remiss not bringing this up before we got eight races into the season. The season report section isn't a season report. The name suggest it reports the season, but instead of doing that we have eight individual race summaries. The two are not the same thing, nor are they interchangeable.

The format very much needs to be alterred so it actually describes the season, instead of eight races. --Falcadore (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

As you have said yourself in our discussion on this, we need to write one season report, not twenty race summaries. As we are eight races into the season, we do not have a full season report. So we can't rewrite half a season report when you've raised that point.

Personally, I don't see much of a problem with it (though I've done most of the writing so my opinion is a little coloured by it). However, reading over your comments, all I'm seeing is you saying "we need to change it" rather than "we need to change it, and this is how we should do it". How is anyone supposed to be able to change it without any idea on how to go about it? Do you want to keep the race summaries as they are, but add an executive summary at the start of the section? Do you want to remove the sections entirely and just have it as a wall of prose? Do you want less of a focus on individual races and more focus on the championship? (I think this last one is a little silly - eight races in, and we have no clear championship leader.)

What do you want from the report? How do you want it to be structured? How do you want it to be written? You haven't given any clear direction on how you think it should be written, so to sit back and say "it needs to be changed" is, well, useless. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

As we are eight races into the season, we do not have a full season report. So we can't rewrite half a season report when you've raised that point.

Of course we can. It just means we have to adjust the language for the whole report after each race. It's just like real life, new events alter the whole. --Falcadore (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you perhaps take one or two sections (say, Canada and Valencia, as they're the most-recent two) and demonstrate how that would work? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No, because it seems by asking a question like that, you've entirely missed the point. A Formula One season is 20 races, not one or two in isolation. --Falcadore (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Then how do you expect anyone to be able to rewrite it if you can't demonstrate what an appropriate rewrite would be? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course I can demonstrate - little busy right now - but it's pointless to do it for two races, as its not in any way an improvement over what we have now. --

An example. Don't be hung up on the wording, it was dashed off very quickl, but the structure is the important part.

Nine races into the season... (refer to archived copies of this page so as not to distract from the real message)

Sorry, but I'm not sold on it. It bounces back and forward too much - sometimes it focuses on races, other times if focuses on teams and there is no real rhyme or reason to the changes - there is far too much emotive language, and your entire last paragraph is speculative. Maybe it's just a wording thing, but the whole section feels like it was written to cut down the word count. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

So when I say, don't focus on thw wording, by all means, focus on the wording.

The point is, this, albeit not well written, is a season summary. The most important part of a season is the winner, You souldn't have to read 17 miniature copies of other articles to find that out. The battle for who wins the world championship is more important than individual race description. We have articles on each individual, so we don't need to recap that here. So you start with the championship leaders, Alonso, Webber, Vettel, Hamilton. Hamilton then leads into how McLaren have struggled lately. First victories to Rosberg and Maldonado are of course noteworthy, the Lotus resurgence. Then Constructors championship. Ater that summarise how the smaller/slower team spent their seasons and any other events of the season like de Villota.

You might call that jumping around, but that is telling the story of the season in order in importance to the article topic which is 2012 Formula One season. Jenson Button winning the first race is not where it should start as the implication then is, is that the AusGP is the most important event of the season. --Falcadore (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Then put in a season overview, an executive summary of the season once the title has been decided. Falcadore's sample is incredibly disorganised. It goes from concentrating on the season to concentrating on races to concnentrating on teams with no real pattern as to when these shifts in focus are appropriate or why the tone has shifted. It's filled with speculation about who is fast and who might be fast, and its internal logic is contradictory. And there is far too much emotive language in there. What's more, you suggest looking at other season events like de Villota's accident. While that was certainly a notable event, it didn't actually affect the outcome of anything in the season. Marussia didn't withdraw from the British Grand Prix because of the accident, which is about the only set of circumstances that I can think of that would justify the inclusion of de Villota's accident.

Sure, you say "don't concentrate on the language", but there's not a hell of a lot else to look at. The style of prose is, in my opinion, so inherently flawed that it's impossible to look beyond it and see the structure, because the structure depends on the style of prose used. This whole thing feels like a half-term season report written for a magazine rather than for an encyclopaedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Then fortunately for you I already spelt out a structure for you so you would not have to read the prose. Do I need to write the structure out for you a second time? Is it poosible for you to address that instead of focusing on something I have now said three times is not the importance component? Tell you what, how about I use bold and italics.

start with the championship leaders, Alonso, Webber, Vettel, Hamilton. Hamilton then leads into how McLaren have struggled lately. First victories to Rosberg and Maldonado are of course noteworthy, the Lotus resurgence. Then Constructors championship. Ater that summarise how the smaller/slower team spent their seasons and any other events of the season like de Villota.

Is that impossible to be understood? Tell you what else, I'll delete the prose you object to so strongly, that should help focus your attention. --Falcadore (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I still don't like it. I still think it is better-suited for a magazine, and Misplaced Pages is not a magazine. I think it is inappropriate to review a season after less than half a season, and as you yourself has pointed out, when we write a race report for the race page, we do it after the race has been run, so how can we review a season after only half a season? I think it assigns undue weight to certain areas - such as the championship leaders - under the assumption that those areas will maintain their notability as the season goes on. But mostly, this feels like a change for the sake of change. You seem to be trying to condense something down into a format that doesn't work for it under the assumption that you can only have quantity or quality, but never both. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

But we're "reviewing the season" anyway by doing individual race reports in miniature and providing a progress score, but we're just doing in an unstructured manner which does not actually reflect the priorities of the radership. All I'm trying to do, is to get the story written propoerly. This isn't a "don't do it until later" because we are already doing, but doing it with all the priorities messed up.

If someone comes into the article now, trying to find out who is leading the championship, you have to go to the bottom of the article to find. out. I'm not proposing to create something new, I'm proposing to fix something already here that is broken. To suggest we should not do until after the season is finished, is to suggest the article should be deleted. --Falcadore (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

And what does "It's like a magazine" mean? Misplaced Pages is actually supposed to be written this way. It is NOT supposed to be written in a timeline. This isn't facebook you know. --Falcadore (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I mean that it reads like something that would appear in a magazine, not an encyclopaedia. But you clearly think I'm an idiot because I don't see things your way, so I doubt you'll take much note of what I just said. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Some magazines write in an encyclopedic style. The Style are as different as the subject, so it's a relatively meaningless remark. This isn't about personalities. --Falcadore (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

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 One!". Eff Won (talk) 22:13, 2 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)

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