Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox F1 team

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Short name

[edit]

Is the "short name" truly necessary? Either the logo says it, or the article should say it. Dan | Talk 21:12, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is "Tyres" needed any more?

[edit]

since all teams use bridgestone tyres now, is there any need for the tyres section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.162.197 (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008/2009 distinction

[edit]

Showing the 2008 information is entirely unnecessary, I propose that we remove it. Eightball (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised the matter at WP:F1 for wider visibility. DH85868993 (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

[edit]

Personally, I would prefer to retain the shaded background for the "2009 Formula One season" and "Formula One World Championship Career" headings, for consistency with Template:Infobox former F1 team. DH85868993 (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial to do, if there's consensus. Just need to add a value for headerstyle, as with the other infobox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I think it looks better with the shaded headings.--Midgrid(talk) 15:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entering the website in the table

[edit]

I am going to enter the website in the table. Wild mine (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parent company

[edit]

What would people think about the entering of a parent company field in the template? It would only show if there was actaully a parent company, which there is for most teams:

Team - Parent Company

- mspete93 [talk] 17:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Website field

[edit]

Any thoughts about having a field for the team's official website url somewhere on this infobox - at the bottom of the top section perhaps? -- de Facto (talk). 08:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly did it. -- de Facto (talk). 08:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Test drivers vs reserve drivers

[edit]

With the decline of testing, and with it the reduction in test drivers (and the relevancy of the ones that remain), is there any objection to renaming the "test driver" field to "reserve driver"? 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about if we leave the parameter name as "yyyy_test_drivers" but change the label to "Test and reserve drivers" and list both types in the field? DH85868993 (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it makes any sense to list the two together as though they are equivalent or equally important. They have different roles and need to be distinguished somehow. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If there are no contradictory views within the next couple of days, I'll add a new "reserve drivers" parameter and update the team articles accordingly. (Although I may require some assistance identifying which drivers fall into which category for each team). DH85868993 (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to keep it as one field there's a few ways we could do it. We could rename it to "Other drivers" and use mouseovers, like TD, RD, and so on. For example:
Other drivers
And there could be other arrangements like this which could all work as long as they are consistently implemented. 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]