Talk:Formula One/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Terms: Grand Prix v Race

The summary includes a sentence that starts: "A Formula One season consists of a series of races, known as Grands Prix...". In my experience, this is not true: US race fans do not refer to races as "grands prix", nor do they use the term "grand prix" to refer to a single racing event, except as part of the title of a race. The British Grand Prix is a "race", not a "grand prix". Perhaps British readers would expect to see "grand prix", although I suspect that, even among British readers, using the term "grand prix" sounds pretentious and odd. I understand that this article has a stronger connection to British English than US English, but this seems like an opportunity to use vocabulary common to all varieties of English. I believe, but can't prove right now, that every reader will understand "race", while most English-speakers will be confused by "grand prix". At this point, "grand prix" appears throughout this and many other articles, so it's probably too late to make this change, but I thought I would raise this issue.Rks13 (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

My understanding (as a British person) is and always has been that "Grand Prix" refers to the event or the weekend as a whole (practise and quali included) the "race" refers exclusively to the part of the weekend between the formation lap and the checkered flag. This means that there are some place where race and Grand Prix are interchangeable (the "winner of the race" is equivalent to the "winner of the Grand Prix" but the opening sentence is correct as is.
SSSB (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Logo

@PedroLucasDBr: F1 is using the F1 70 logo for 2020. I feel like it's appropriate to have in the article if it's being used this year? [1] FozzieHey (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok then. I din't know about that logo until now. PedroLucasDBr (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Constructor nationality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Carfan568: How many sources do you need? I don't think we need to cite every single fact in the infobox as it affects readability purposes. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] FozzieHey (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

None of those confirm that the constructor has a nationality and not the team/entrant. How do you explain that in for example this entry list Team Rebaque had a Mexican nationality and entered a Lotus, while the factory Lotus team's nationality was British? Also note that the official FIA and F1 websites and on-screen graphics on TV do not list nationalities for constructors in the championship standings and entry lists like they do for drivers. Carfan568 (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Would you not agree that times have changed since 1978? Are you saying Mercedes-Benz AG the constructor is not German because I'm sure we can get some registration documents for that as well? FozzieHey (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Those times are a good reference as back then multiple teams raced for the same constructor. Also the entry list from 2010 that you posted did not not include any nationalities for constructors like it did for drivers and teams/entrants. The official FIA and F1 websites and on-screen graphics on TV still do not list nationalities for constructors in the championship standings and entry lists like they do for drivers. If there is no evidence that the FIA officially recognise nationalities for constructors, then we should not put flags next to them like with engine manufacturers. Carfan568 (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The constructor Mercedes-Benz AG is German, is there any downside in stating that in the infobx? FozzieHey (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not Mercedes-Benz AG, it is Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Ltd., which is in Britain. If we cannot include flags for engine manufacturers because the FIA doesn't officially recognise their nation, then we should be consistent here and apply the same reasoning for constructors. Carfan568 (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Ltd. is a subsidiary of Mercedes-Benz AG. The majority of people visiting this page will be looking for the team not the constructor. I think we should assume here that team nationality == constructor nationality, sure the FIA doesn't explicitly state "Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Ltd. is German" but why would they? If both the team and the parent company is German that why shouldn't we state that here? Mercedes themselves state that they are German. FozzieHey (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Team and constructor simply are different things and we should not put the team's nationality next to a constructor. The team's nationality can be mentioned in prose, but putting ambiguous flags like that is not really appropriate per MOS:FLAG. Carfan568 (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Teams ARE constructors in the past few decades. Although constructor and team were separate in the past, the specific articles you are editing are all ones in which every team was required to be a constructor. Hence the nationality of the team is the nationality of the constructor. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit: Further, per your example of the Formula One sporting regulations, your say that entrants must include "The name of the team (which must include the name of the chassis)." This means that the name of the team must include the name of the constructor. The name of the chassis does not refer to the F1000 or E23 or FW38 or whatever each team wants to call their cars. It refers to the constructor name used in the full name of the chassis. We had this problem before of previously listing "Red Bull" as the constructor when the FIA recognized "Red Bull Racing" or "RBR" as the constructor. Your attempt to claim that the FIA considers the team and constructor to be separate is WP:SYNTH. Your repeated use of Rebaque does not negate that the line between entrant and constructor has merged since the 1990s. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• F1MercPitwall.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Is COVID-19 section (as it currently exists) necessary/appropriate for this article?

The information detailed is all found (or at least should be found) on the 2020 article. I'm not sure how relevant it is to this broad overview article. Does anyone have any comments on this? 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:183B:9A80:C175:A5D6 (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

why doesn't the lead go into more detail about the history of Grand Prix racing?

At the very least a mention of how the World Drivers' Championship was at the very least a successor to (if not a continuation of) the 1930s European Drivers' Championship; and the origin of Grand Prix motor racing with the 1906 French Grand Prix would seem in order. While reliable sources usually only stick to counting World Championship races for purely statistical purposes, it's rare to see them pretend that Grands Prix just suddenly sprang into existence in 1950.

A short sentence somewhere in the lead saying something like "Grand Prix motor racing can trace its history to the first decade of the 20th century, while the modern World Championship effectively replaced the 1930s European Drivers' Championship" would probably suffice.

The lead currently seems heavily slanted towards discussing the current state of the sport, often going into details which would likely be better covered elsewhere in the article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Qualifying Tyres

Here is what the article says:

"Each car taking part in Q3 receives an 'extra' set of the softest available tyre. This set has to be handed in after qualifying, but drivers knocked out in Q1 or Q2 can use this set for the race."

How can that be? The drivers knocked out in Q1 or Q2 don't take part in Q3; they don't get the extra tyres.

Also, the references to the formula1.com website, [57}, [58}, [59], don't say what they apparently used to say. The website has been updated.

Yanacochito (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe everyone gets an extra set that can ONLY be used in Q3, if they make it. If they don't, they're free to use it during the race. If they do, the set must be used in Q3. Admanny (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I was under the impression (don't ask me where I get the impression from) is that only drivers who take part in Q3 are given the tyres in the first place, and the tyres must be returned after the session as they are Q3 tyres.
SSSB (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! After some internet searching, I found the following, which I think is the authoritative document, titled "2020 FORMULA ONE SPORTING REGULATIONS" https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/2020_formula_1_sporting_regulations_-_iss_8_-_2020-05-27_0.pdf . What I understand from it:

· Each car gets 13 sets of tyres for the race, 6 of which are returned after practice

· Of the 7 sets remaining, one is the Q3 soft compound tyre, one is the race specification medium tyre and one is the race specification hard tyre

· The cars that make it to Q3 have to return their Q3 soft compound tyre after Q3; the cars that don't make it to Q3 don't

So, it's not really like an extra set. It's more like the cars that don't make Q3 can use their Q3 tyres in the race.

Please check my source and my logic. If there is no disagreement, I will clarify the page that confused me. Yanacochito (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

That is also how I read that document
SSSB (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Removing my edit as this is not a history article

My edit was a history one so I'm removing it as this is not a history article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatUnknownF1Fan (talk • contribs) 15:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Contribution toward environmental sustainability; ICE phase-out date

It would be nice to include links to articles arguing, as I believe, that given that ICE engines will have to be completely phased out in mass motoring (and probably therefore, all motoring?) by 2035..2050, that to continue to use ICE engines in F1 is not relevant to the development of real-life vehicle technologies: therefore, an ICE phase-out date should be adopted. It could be that hydrogen might be used - which is a technology that is a mass-market option (albeit for long/heavy haul road, shipping, rail and aviation). But which technology is a market decision, and indeed could be a major part of the sport, one could have different technologies competing against each other.Lawrence18uk (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CRYSTAL. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

As well as WP:OR.
SSSB (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Effects of COVID-19

The Effects of COVID-19 section of this article feels to be too temporally-specific to fit into a general article, moreso given the section currently only relates to calendar changes in 2020 and isn't a larger piece about the effects of the pandemic on drivers, the 2021 tech regs changes, the 2021 calendar, or the larger sport.

Propose removing this section; perhaps making a shorter note of the pandemic and its effects elsewhere in the article. I don't think a table of calendar changes is really necessary, as the 2020 and 2021 World Championship articles already do this is in far more detail. Kimberly Grey (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The section is WP:RECENTISM.
SSSB (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Also agree. There's a large amount of unnecessary detail covering more recent seasons in this article compared to earlier periods, which is WP:UNDUE WP:RECENTISM. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I also have the same concerns surronding the "new locations initiative" section
SSSB (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the section, adding a new paragraph to history instead (the change). By no means thorough, purposefully omitting a few things (Perez, Stroll and Hamilton catching it; the Virtual Grand Prix; probably more) but I wasn't sure how relevant those would be considered in the wider scheme of things. Kimberly Grey (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Formula 1 all over the world-2021.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Content dispute: where teams are based

I'm quite angry with Mark83 and his baseless accusations, but I'll try to keep focus on his edits.

First. The main point of my removal is that neither source given actually mentions Haas' UK base, the only one that discusses Haas (a bad one) only says they're based in America. We're supposed to write articles based on reliable published sources, not what we feel is mostly right/correct. "More right than wrong" is not an excuse, the texts we add should at least try to reflect what sources actually say. Morrover, it's not even true as currently written...

Second. I'll admit the secondary arguments on Red Bull and Alpine are weaker and can be handwaved as "well, that's irrelevant (even if true) and can't be proven through secondary RS, bruh". However, I'll argue that most news articles (even from sources considered RS) discussing the so-called "Motorsport Valley" are not-NPOV and rarely try to depict a complete picture on the entities beyond a British perspective.

Third. The original text was really there to prove how Ferrari is more authentic and special and most of the other teams are just fake English mercenary placeholders (which may be true, but not really NPOV). The sources do not support the text as written, and were hastily added after its addition was reverted a couple of times. The original text contained gems like conflating team and constructor or saying Ferrari are the only one "which produces road cars and Formula 1 cars at the same site, which is also the company Headquarters" I tried to fix it to be at least factually correct even if not sticking with the supposed "sources", but I gave up...

I'm open to discuss ways to highlight the importance of the British industry on F1. But at least let's try to stick to sources... or at least to the truth.

If this thread has no meaningful responses after a week, other that appealing to a majority "consensus" (consensus≠majority here...), I'll remove the text again. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I am quick to apologise when I've done something wrong. In this case I have no idea why you are getting so "quite angry" about this edit summary of mine:

"It's more correct than it's not. Your edit summary is full of opinion/original research. Since we've so far got a 2:1 opinion for the status quo, so let's take this to the talk page to agree the way forward".

This referred to your edit summary of

" thinking more on it, removing the para completely, as it's a can of worms. The only RS source used is really old, and doesn't include Haas (which is very debatable to call UK-based), and doesn't really explains Red Bull (engine supplied from Sakura and synergies with an Italian team) and Alpine (many operations of the team, including some marketing and management activities, are really based in Boulogne-Billancourt and Viry, even if chassis and legal base is in Enston"

It excludes Haas due to age of the source, agreed. But Red Bull is demonstrably a UK-centred team (but not by flag of course). Did McLaren's foreign engines make them non-British (1 of countless examples)? And do Aston Martin's synergies with Mercedes change their nationality? And Apline is still Enstone-focused and based (no argument that the French operations are also significant however). Good luck finding a RS for otherwise. Overall the paragraph definitely needs to be updated, I totally agree. I just disagree with your heavy-handed approach to removing it altogether. Mark83 (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Mark83, I'm keeping what I said off-topic on all over, I see no reason to change my views. As for the on-topic discussion, the content was already accepted in a poor state two times: the first with glaring fallacies and the second admittedly in better form, but still off on the content side (even if you handwave the Red Bull/Alpine thing, which arguably you can do, it's still off...) and with poor sourcing. Content should be reasonably accurate and sourced as soon as it's in the article. But let's run on the premise I was too heavy-handed when insisting on straight removing it (although I tried to improve it, albeit without much success...), and the paragraph at its core has indeed information worthy of Wikipedia. Fair enough, that sounds better a premise than non-arguments and appeals to majorities. So, let's keep it, sure. Let's hope it doesn't stay as it is now, and people take some minutes to fix the info and the sourcing. That's it from my part. --Urbanoc (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Pole Trophy

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One § Pole Trophy

 – Wrong venue. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

There are currently no sporting regulations covering the 'Pole Trophy" the last set of sporting regulations I can find to mention the existence of such a trophy awarded at the end of the season for the most pole positions is 2018 with the regulations for 2019 omitting the "Pole Trophy". As such it appears to have been replaced with the wind tunnel tyre awarded after each qualifying event. I have tried to find sources for the winner of the 2019 and 2020 "Pole Trophy" as described, but none can be found. As such I think this needs removing from articles from 2019 onwards as the FIA from the loos of the regulations have scrapped the overall trophy at the end of the season with the Wind Tunnel tyres. The relevant regulation was 6.7 of the sporting code and I have included the 2014 to present Sporting Regulations for reference below:
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Sparkle1 (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• And yet Formula 1 still awarded Leclerc the Pole Trophy for 2019 (announcement on F1.com), so whether or not it is awarded is not solely determined by regulation. However, I agree with removing it from season infoboxes beginning with 2019 since it seems to be on the same level as the overtake award, pit stop award, etc. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• I have moved the discussion to WT:F1 since this does not relate to the Formula One article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One § Pole Trophy

 – Wrong venue. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2021 and 23 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Natjman11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

New Locations Initiative

The current New Locations Initiative section seems a bit ambiguous, the cited main aim of this initiative is to "introduce races in countries that have never competed in the sport before". It's my understanding of the current sections that the Miami Grand Prix should be kept in the Future Grands Prix section until the race is complete. However, after that where should it be placed? I think it's important to highlight the newer races but I don't think it fits under the cited aim of the "New Locations Initiative". I tried to find out more information about this initiative but couldn't find much, so it may just be worth renaming the section to "New Races (2008-present)". I also don't quite know why these sections (including the Returning additions section) are limited to 2008-present, maybe we should change it to something a bit more recent (the last 5 or 10 years or something?). FozzieHey (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The biggest problem with this section is that it should be removed. It is blatant WP:RECENTISM and WP:OR (as most of the Grands Prix within this section are not identified as being part of the New Locations Initiative within the sources). SSSB (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't object to the section being removed, but I think it is important to highlight the new races in the main article. That might not include a dedicated table but just a couple of sentences detailing the expansion, I think the current List of Formula One Grands Prix article handles quite a lot of that already though. I don't think that would be too WP:RECENTISM because we also have a few sentences detailing the history dating back to the 1950s. FozzieHey (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

A handful of sentences explaining how the number of races and variaety of locations are already in the prose (but could be updated, as it currently deals with the 2014 season). Having dedicated sections covering individual periods is WP:UNDUE unless we cover other time periods equally. (i.e. if we have a table for the 15 years to 2023 (which is 2008-2023) we should have another table for 1992-2007 etc.) I would remove the returning additions (2008-present), new locations initive, and future GP sections, and let the prose only handle the most recent addition(s), and future (100% confirmed) races. SSSB (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with deleting the Returning additions and New Locations Initiative sections and detailing a short history in prose (the rest is handled in the List of Formula One Grands Prix list). However, I think it's a good idea to keep the Future Grands Prix section, it's not WP:UNDUE as they don't have any coverage elsewhere (neither in the Grands Prix list article nor their respective season articles because the 2023+ season articles don't exist yet). I also think it's more intuitive to handle those races in a simple table (removing the notes section and just showing the introduction year) than it is to handle those in prose. So if we were to just limit the Future Grands Prix section to confirmed races in which a season article doesn't already exist, I think that would be the best course of action. FozzieHey (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a quick demo table to try and demonstrate what I'm thinking of. FozzieHey (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Race	Circuit	Target calendar entry
Qatar Grand Prix	TBC	2023
Las Vegas Grand Prix	Las Vegas Street Circuit	2023

These Grands Prix are already listed in List of Formula One Grand Prix, where it is listed with all the other Grands Prix. If we want a seperate section dedicated to future Grands Prix then the appropriate location would be that article, not here. Even if we did decide to include future races in this article, we don't need a table for two GPs, a simple sentence would do: "The Qatar and Las Vegas Grands Prix are due to join the calendar for the 2023 season. The wikilinks can then be used to find out more information (such as track). But again, a similar sentence is already in the list article.

My opinion is that the GPs section in the article should effectely be a summary of the lead of List of Formula One Grand Prix, nothing more. SSSB (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

While I agree that List of Formula One Grands Prix has these two races, it's not very easy to see upcoming races (whereas if you wanted to see a tabled list of races in a given season, you would go to the respective article for that season). What I was thinking of with the simple table above is to effectively provide the differences between the current season's article and the next season. I would support adding an "upcoming" section to the list article (below the current "Active and past races") section and changing this article's section to be a subset of the list articles lead. FozzieHey (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

That's what we will do then. I'll wait a bit longer, and if there are no additional comments, I'll be bold and trim it down. SSSB (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Can Las Vegas and Kyalami be considered "new locations" anyway? F1 has raced at these before. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I think for the purpose of this, new locations can be defined as "Races that are not in the current season, but are included in the next season". That sufficiently differentiates it from the "Active and past races" section. FozzieHey (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The Qatar Grand Prix isn't new in any definition though. Am I the only here who remembers we already had a Qatar Grand Prix occuring in 2021?Tvx1 19:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have used the word "new" there. The additional section we're suggesting in the list article is an "Upcoming" section comprising of races not included in the current season calendar. When that is implemented, we can just drop the race tables in this article. FozzieHey (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding map of Grand Prix host countries

@Chaddy: You have removed a map that displays the countries that have hosted a Formula One Grand Prix from this article along with this one and this one, insisting it to be "propaganda", I assume because Crimea is grouped together with Russia. Firstly, regarding your edit summary, I never suggested there was an obligation to stick with the default – however, it is indeed true that disputed territories by default are grouped into the country who has the de facto administrative power in the region, even though you failed to include that part in your quote from the blank map documentation. It is not "propaganda", it's been left to the default based on commons:Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view, as explained by SSSB in this deletion request from last year. If you disagree with how the map handles international disputes, you are much better off initiating a new discussion on Commons on how the map should be coloured, rather than removing the map entirely from various Wikipedia articles. As an experienced editor, you should know that your personal disapproval with the grouping of Crimea is not grounds for complete WP:REMOVAL.

Pinging @SSSB: @Joseph2302: @Island92: @5225C: for some opinions so that this doesn't become an edit war between two people.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  01:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Map is not propaganda. It sums up where Formula One Grands Prix have taken place in the World so far, including those in past seasons such as Africa countries. Island92 (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• This has been a contentious issue for years but at the end of the day we're trying to show where the World Championship competes and has competed in a graphical form. What we aren't trying to do is show a politically-accurate map of the world. The deletion discussion is quite clear; there is no policy-backed reason to remove the map. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The only neutral point of view are the borders according to international law (the law also Russia is bound to by being a member of the UN). Showing the borders a nation wants to establish by forcibly breaking international law surely can not be neutral in any way, we support the point of view of Russia by this.
Thanks to this discussion I now have found this RfC and its preceding discussion from 2019/2020 for the article 2020 Formula One World Championship. Of course this only applies for this specific article, but the result is still interesting for this dispute here, too. The majority was against a colored map for various reasons and a map was suggested that only shows dots for the venues. I will ping all users that have participated in this RfC (as far as they haven't been pinged already by Ved havet): @Scjessey, @Tvx1, @DeFacto, @Sjones23. I also ping the creator of this map (@Cherkash) and @Unas964 and @RMN120501 (sorry if I have forgotten someone).
Another interesting point that should also be considered: The FIA itself sees the Crimea as part of Ukraine ([11]). Chaddy (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

We're not "supporting" anyone, we're sticking to the current, de facto situation in the world. It's a statement about what the situation is, not what it rightfully should be. E.g., the article of Afghanistan using the Taliban flag is not the same as Wikipedia "supporting" the Taliban regime.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  06:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

What the FIA thinks is irrelevant, as we are not the FIA. The funny thing is that you quoted commons:File talk:BlankMap-World.svg/Documentation#Territorial disputes where it says "It is left to the user to decide how to color them", but this doesn't support your view. It supports continung to colour the Crimea as part of Russia, as this is what was decided by the user who created the map (Cherkash). Finally, colouring based on de Facto vs. de Jure is equally neutral, and equally not propaganda. In fact, Chaddy, you are the one who is slippy into non-neutrality and propaganda by insiting we colour a map based on your political opinion, this is made worse by the fact you aren't consistently supporting de jure, as you have no problem with the de facto shadding of Taiwan (whoch, if we followed international law (or at least recognition), would be coloured as part of China). SSSB (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

International law is not my "political opinion", it's the basement of all international relations. But interestingly, exactly this is Russians strategy: Implying that international law just would be a "political opinion" which could legally be relativised by another "political opinion". And also whataboutism isn't helful. Taiwan is not the topic of this discussion here. You can start another discussion on the Taiwan subject. Chaddy (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Crimea is not the topic of discussion here, the topic of discussion is the map, so Taiwan is as relevant as Crimea. You cannot have it both ways. International law is politics, when countries decided on how they view the Crimea, they decided based on political alliances and international relations. The fact that you insist on showing the Crimea based on international law, but you aren't applying this argument consistently across the map shows that your arguement is based on your political opinion. Wikipedia is not the place for political opinions. SSSB (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course the Crimea is topic of this discussion here. It is the reason why these maps are disputed since years.

International law is not politics, it is law. Of course, governments ignore it when they want to. But the rules themselves are clear. You can not ignore this fact and tell the opposite.

You don't know anything about my political opinion. Please stop speculating about it.

All in all, your discussion stretegy is unfair and destructive. I only see whataboutism and derailing here from you. Please stop this. Chaddy (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The topic of the discussion is the map. This is where your problem lies. I don't dispute the fact that international law is clear, but if you insist the map follows international law, then you should insist it does so consistently. Otherwise your entire argument is fundamentally flawed, if you insist on one rule for Crimea, but are happy to apply a different rule to everyone else. The fact that you don't means you are turning a black-and-white issue (what rule set should we apply to the map) into a political argument (which territories should be coloured to international law, and which shouldn't). This isn't "whataboutism" from me, you are refusing to acknowledge that your complaint has wider implications. SSSB (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I will not play your whataboutism game. It is too obvious what you are trying here. But this will not work. Chaddy (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

No one is playing whataboutism. We're simply pointing out to you that international law was NEVER a factor for this map. We only ever cared about sporting nations acknowledged by this sport's governing body. Again, see my example of the FIFA maps and the United Kingdom. And the map you linked to doesn't prove anything. It has full lines seperating England, Wales and Scotland from one another, even though we know that the FIA only recognizes the United Kingdom as the nation covering that territory.Tvx1 19:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The only neutral point of view to represent the borders of sporting nations is to reflect the borders shown by that sport’s governing body. Since the FIA considers Crimea part of Russia, and thus the Russian Automobile Federation responsible for governing motorsport in Crimea, we should reflect. For the exact same reason we do not draw the United Kingdom as one country, per the UN/international law, but we draw England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as separate nations, per the FIFA.Tvx1 10:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The FIA considers Crimea part of Ukriane as I have proven. Chaddy (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You haven't proven anything. Your "proof" is WP:OR. I also seem to remember (from previous discussions) that the race programmes for the Russian Grand Prix showed Crimea as Russian. SSSB (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation of OR...

Here again my evidence: [12]. Chaddy (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, WP:OR. WP:OR states "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". What you've done is analyised the material (the lack of a line between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine) to reach a conclusion (that the FIA considers Crimea part of Russia) which isn't actually stated by the source. The source doesn't explicitly state how the FIA consider the Crimea, hence it is WP:OR. SSSB (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"What you've done is analyised the material (the lack of a line between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine) to reach a conclusion (that the FIA considers Crimea part of Russia) which isn't actually stated by the source." - Really? Have I to explain you how a map works? Chaddy (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The prenense or absense of a line on a map is WP:OR, it only implies what the FIA's stance is, it doesn't explicitly state it, and therefore it is WP:OR. And cut the patronising attitude, especially as your wrong.

While we are on the subject of the map. Kosovo is listed as an FIA member, but it's borders aren't on the map.[13] Does this mean that the FIA doesn't recognise Kosovo, of course not, because it is an FIA member. Proof that the map proves nothing, as it completely contradicts what it does/doesn't recognise. SSSB (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

There are (dotted) borders for Kosovo on this map. Do me a favour and stop your desinformation. Chaddy (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

All of this bullshit above is why the map shouldn't have the countries, only the venues. It's also worth noting that for many races (though not all, of course) the country has nothing to do with the race, which is normally arranged by a promoter and/or circuit independent of their government or nation. Take the countries out of the equation and the arguments go away. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Scjessey: +1 I also think this could solve this dispute. Chaddy (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I continue to strongly believe that any map should only show the precise location of venues, marked with a dot. As soon as you start shading in countries, you open yourself up to controversy and edit warring. With that said, I don't think this world map has ever shown any useful value to the reader in the first place. If you want to show that Formula One is a global business, just say so in the text. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Scjessey is speaking volumes of sense. Just use dots to represent circuits. Makes a load of sense - especially seeing as there are non-"national" GPs in the F1 championship. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree that shading doesn't add anything worthwhile. I never understood how the afore mentioned RfC reached the conclusion that there wasn't a consensus to remove the shading. However, I don't support removing the map entirely. A picture is worth a thousand words. Here the map doesn't show that F1 is a global business. It highlights the lack of races in Africa, and the prevalence of races in Europe. SSSB (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

So, do we have a consensus to use a map like this one? Of course someone who can handle svgs needs to create one for the current season. But this shouldn't be a problem. Chaddy (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Within this thread, maybe (no opposition, yet). I would recommend a bold replacement, as there has never been a consensus in favour of colouring. If it is reverted, then we can move to a discussion dedicated solely to that issue (a new one, to avoid us getting distracted by how we colour, which isn't relevant to if we should colour). If we still don't have consensus, we go to RfC. SSSB (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with this per WP:BRD. I would also add that you could have coloured dots for current calendar and black dots for all the others. The relevant data can be found in this article (which also has the problem map). -- Scjessey (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay! Now just someone needs to create such a map. Chaddy (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I would just use the same system of dots as previously, with larger, solid dots for current races, and smaller, outlined dots for previous ones. It'd be good to add some colour somehow though, as they become very black and white without the coloured countries.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  20:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cherkash: I'm not sure if you're aware of this discussion, but what's your take on it? Would you be interested in adopting a pratice where countries aren't coloured in in your 2022 and future Formula 1 all over the world maps?  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  20:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Just use coloured dots, then. SSSB (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Bad idea. Not everyone can fully distinguish all colors. We should never use color alone to convey information.Tvx1 19:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

...which is why I'm suggesting the same system of dots as previously, with larger, solid dots for current races and smaller, outlined dots for previous ones. However, adding some colour helps making it less bland.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  22:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting to use colours to convey information. I was just saying that rather than using big black circles, and small white ones (like we do now), use big blue dots (or whatever colour), and small white ones. That way the colours don't actually convey anything, but just make it prettier. SSSB (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

But suggesting to use blue and white to distinguish them, you are suggesting to rely on colors. Use different shapes, like dots and squares, instead as everyone can distinguish that.Tvx1 23:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

How is this any different to using black and white like we do now? Or shading countries in green? Colour blind people can still distinguich shades, even if they can't tell what the colour is. The key doesn't need to mention colours, we simply say, "big dots represent current locations, small dots represent previous locations". SSSB (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Ved havet, thanks for pinging me. I personally think that coloring or highlighting the countries is relevant to the subject. Countries that host(ed) Grands Prix are not insignificant, as demonstrated by this being specifically mentioned in a bunch of Wiki articles on F1, as well as a multitude of external sources. Also, majority (if not all) of the races are actually organized by FIA member clubs which specifically represent the countries - so it's not only "promoter and/or circuit" that is typically involved (as was incorrectly mentioned earlier by Scjessey). However, if for some reason there is a strong desire by some editors to have a "blanked out" map with de-emphasized countries while at the same time specifically emphasizing the venues only, I can help with this by creating such a version of the map like I've done in the past. cherkash (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cherkash: It was not "incorrect" for me to say that most races are arranged through promoters and/or circuits. In fact, almost all of them are done in that way. It is true that many countries (or regions of countries) may provide backing, tax incentives or subsidies to these, but most actual races are run through a promoter of some kind, even if that promoter is just a "front" for a nation or region. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Scjessey: It was not incorrect - but you are conflating commercial arrangements with the sporting arrangements. E.g. FIA is involved in the latter, while FOM (or whatever they happen to be called at any given moment in time) in the former. cherkash (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cherkash: That's just naivety. You cannot separate commercial and sporting arrangements in F1. Without a commercial promoter, most races simply wouldn't happen. In fact, the promoter usually has to pony up a fuckton of cash just to get F1 to even consider racing somewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

One party being dependent on the other doesn't mean they can't be separated.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  21:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cherkash: would you mind creating such a map. That way we can at least be on the same page about what such a map would like. Rather than have people give opinions based on imagination. Then we can make a more informed decision. SSSB (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@SSSB: Here you go. cherkash (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, to be frank I think with just the dots remaining the map loses 90% of its usefulness.Tvx1 23:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. cherkash (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the map is just as useful as before. For me, this proves that highlighting nations doesn't actually add anything other than colour. The only thing I would say is that the dots for previous races need to be made clearer (maybe make them black, and distinguish old and current races by the size of the dot alone. SSSB (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

That's gonna make it useless arond Europe. The dots will just melt into each other.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  10:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, that's already a problem, but I see your point... we could have a global map, and a Europe map (like Formula E article do). I don't know I'm just brain-storming.

Expanding on my previous point, the point of the map isn't to highlight the nations which host F1 races, it is to highlight where in the world races are. So I've always thought the colours were actually a distraction to the map's purpose. SSSB (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the proposed map is as useful as the existing one. I don't understand how you can even claim that. And who says that isn't the point of the map to higlight the hosting nations? You? When was there ever any discussion on that subject?? The first time a map appeared in a season article was back in 2012. And that one only highlighted the nations and didn't mark the circuits at all. So I'd say highlighting the nations was always the main intention. Showing where the circuits were located within the nations was an intention which was added much later. I really find it remarkable that you are so lecturing about maps which originated five years before you joined Wikipedia. All this is just a knee-jerk reaction to one editor who simply refuses to accept that we never used international law as a basis to generate these maps.Tvx1 14:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you in that I find the colours useful to a certain extent, and think there's better solutions if the border issue is even an issue. Let's stop making time on Wikipedia an argument, though.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  19:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Time on Wikipedia isn't the argument. It isn't about experience. The argument is a blunt claim on the purpose of something when the person in question wasn't involved with creating and purposing the subject in any way.Tvx1 19:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The map has never been "useful" in any of its forms. As I've said before, it would be better to get rid of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

That’s only personal opinion. Many readers and editors don’t support that view.Tvx1 13:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

You can also argue it is original research, since it has been created from scratch by synthesis of available data. My point is that for such a synthesis to be included, it needs to prove its value to the reader rather than the other way around. The lame argument that it is needed to "show the global nature" of the sport is easily answered by the existence of "which take place worldwide" in the article's introduction, so it is really not needed. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This is improper use of WP:SYNTHESIS. What's the conclusion in the map that is not explicitly stated by any source? The official schedule explicitly states the countries along with the tracks, and combining this year's schedule with previous seasons does not imply any such conclusion.

Even if WP:SYNTHESIS was relevant, it needing to "prove it's value" is not a relevant factor to whether it should be included or not. It's a visualization of where F1 rounds have been held, both in terms of tracks and countries, both of which are supported by the sources. Such visualizations are neither uncommon nor problematic.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  15:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

"Combining this year's schedule with previous seasons" to create a thing is TEXTBOOK synthesis. You specifically need a source that explicitly states what it is that you are trying to convey with this map, and because no such source exists we are currently creating one by violating this part of WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Using or combining more than one source is not the issue, it's what Wikipedia is built on. Doing so to reach a conclusion not supported by any source is an issue however, and that is what is adressed by WP:SYNTHESIS. Again I'll ask you, what is the conclusion this synthesis creates that is not explicitly stated by any source? Because as far as I can tell, we're trying to convey 1) what rounds are on this year's calendar, and 2) what rounds have been on previous years' calendars. The sources support both of those things, and I don't see how the map creates a separate conclusion from this that's not supported by the sources. The map is quite literally a visualization of List of Formula One Grands Prix.

I'll add that such maps are far from uncommon on Wikipedia. They're being used in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022 infobox, in the list of World Rally Championship rallies, and in the list of Super Bowl host cities. And with good reason, considering one of the good article criteria and featured list criteria is that the article/list is illustrated with media files, which includes visual maps.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  17:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The rationale for including the map in the first place was that it showed that Formula 1 was a global sport, but that is better explained in the text already. The map is, therefore, superfluous at best and (because of the apparent conflicts it is creating above) an edit war magnet at worst. Moreover, an apparently broken visual solution that has clear accessibility issues is best excluded until such time as a solution can present itself. Remember this map was never intended to be in this article in the first place, and trying to repurpose it has created all kinds of trouble. This is the last I will be saying on the matter, since I don't want to wander into the realm of disruption to make a point, but it would be wrong not to stridently state my objection. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

My rationale is that it illustrates the content of the relevant articles/article sections/lists where it is included, just like any other image, map, diagram or other other visual aid. It doesn't matter if you think the text "explains it better", you could have that opinion about practically any media file. A picture is worth a thousand words though, which is why maps are used alongside text in countless Wikipedia articles without any problems, and why visualizations are a criteria for "Good" articles and "Featured" articles and lists. This all really is a complete sidetrack from the real discussion, the only reason this map has caused a conversation is because one user wrongly decided to remove it based on how it rendered the border between Ukraine and Russia. Removing the colouring of countries, or removing the map completely, are drastic and completely unecessary solutions. There is a discussion to be had on how such borders should be rendered, but besides that, just the use of such a map is recommended, extremely common, and a non-issue.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  20:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Scjessey, I’m sorry but you’re being ridiculous here. Firstly, there is no case of synthesis here whatsoever here. There is no connclusion being drawn from statements from different sources. There only is a map with very easily verifiable information of which countries host and hosted formula 1 races. I could understand the usefulness on season articles being questioned, but then again the 2015 article became a featured article with the full map, but in this article in a section that details the history of the races being hosted throughout out the world a visual representation of where in the world the host countries and their F1 tracks are situated is very worthwile. Secondly, your claim that the rationale for including the map was to demonstrate “the global nature” is just as sweeping and false as SSSB’s claim that showing which countries host(ed) races was never the intention. As far as can derive from when this map was created and when they were first added, the intention always was to visually show where in the world the host countries are situated and where in these countries the host circuits are located.Tvx1 00:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Scjessey, I’m sorry but you’re being ridiculous here.

@Tvx1: I said I wouldn't be saying more on this matter, but I feel compelled to point out that this violates WP:NPA. Please try to be more civil and assume good faith. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Would you guys say the Alfa Romeo 158/159 is an F1 car or simply a pre-war Voiturette converted to be an F1 car?

It started production in 1938 but in 1950 was entered into the F1 World Championship where it won every race (except the obvious Indy 500) and continued to win races until 1953.

Its very strange. GarethBaloney (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"2050 Formula One World Championship" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2050 Formula One World Championship has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 5 § 2050 Formula One World Championship until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Street circuits?

It is a stretch to call Jeddah Corniche and Miami a street circuit. Jeddah: Most features are permanent (e.g., pit buildings) and if you look at Google Maps, there is not a single car on those “streets” but there are elsewhere in Jeddah. The streets are clearly not open to regular traffic and it would not make sense if they were as the circuit is built between two public roads. Miami: this is 90% a parking lot of a football stadium. It includes a section of a public road, but again, it is a stretch to call it a street circuit. I propose removing non street circuits. Keeping Wikipedia pages honest by removing inaccurate and obviously, self-promotional text. (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

This comment is WP:Original research. I know (because I researched when I was repling to your comment at Talk:Jeddah Corniche Circuit) that many sources call that venue a street circuit, so we must too. As for Miami, the statement in unsourced either way (no source calls it a street circuit, but no source calls identifies it as purpose built), so I have requested a citation for it. SSSB (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive reply regarding Miami. On Jeddah, I guess most media are gaslit and want to believe it. Globalwikireader (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)