Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 51

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One. 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.

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

→

More sortable functions

I've been experimenting with the sort function at another WikiProject and I have found a way to sort multi-line cells based on a single line in an adjacent column without corrupting the table. This was something that we were never able to do when we first introduced the sort function to Formula 1 articles; clearly the site has been updated since. If we were to apply to to a championship article, we could sort by car number, driver name and rounds. It's a big job and too late for me to try and play around with here (it took me an hour just to figure out the above example), but is this something we would be interested in applying to our articles? 1.144.107.158 (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

USGP West Official Names

I've had a look at the website linked to in Talk:British Grand Prix for program covers, and it looks like the names for the USGP West are also incorrect. 1976 WAS called the "United States Grand Prix West", but every other year was called "Long Beach Grand Prix" (with or without a sponsor name). 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983. In the articles, they are all given the official name "nth United States Grand Prix West", except 1979 which is correctly called "Lubri Lon Long Beach Grand Prix", and 1982 which adds the sponsor Toyota, but still has USGP West. Unless there's something I'm missing, I don't understand the logic of calling any of these pages USGP West, or indeed having a separate article to Grand Prix of Long Beach given that a similar example, the Detroit Grand Prix has its own article in spite of many sources, including the formula one website, calling it the "United States Grand Prix". I personally think that these articles (except 1976) should be renamed in line with the official title, and then the articles United States Grand Prix West and Grand Prix of Long Beach could be merged, since there's plenty of articles of national GPs which had both World Championship and non-World Championship races, so that shouldn't cause a problem. A7V2 (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I support renaming the "19yy United Stated Grand Prix West" articles to "19yy Long Beach Grand Prix" (I'd also include the 1976 event for consistency/continuity, given that the article for the 1975 Formula 500 event is called 1975 Long Beach Grand Prix) and merging United States Grand Prix West and Grand Prix of Long Beach. DH85868993 (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I had also noticed that. There were earlier discussions here and here. Using Long Beach Grand Prix appeared to have been agreed on already back then, but somehow it was never done. However I will note that, these days at least, Wikipedia's policy is to use common names rather than official names for article titles. I'm therefore not convinced that this renaming is supported by policy.T v x1 18:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

From the MotorSport magazine database entry for Long Beach: "promoter Chris Pook attracted the Formula 1 World Championship to the United States Grand Prix West (a cumbersome title that was soon dropped)." If you look at the race reports for the F1 events at Long Beach the entries are all called "Long Beach Grand Prix", but it looks like the contemporary articles in the magazine were called "United States GP (West)" or similar. I think part of the problem must be that the first World Championship event WAS officially called the "United States Grand Prix West", which probably lead to journalists keeping that name (also part of the problem may have been that before the Long Beach event, no country had held two WC events since 1959). Could it be that they didn't call it the Long Beach GP/GP of Long Beach as they believed it wouldn't sound international enough, or that average (European) readers wouldn't have known that Long Beach was in the US? Whether or not USGP West is a "Common Name" or not I don't know, but to me it seems like the event is one and the same Long Beach GP that still runs today (hence why the 2018 running was the 44th GP of Long Beach according to organisers), so it doesn't make sense for it to have a separate page. A final question: Given that the event took place in the United States, would it not make sense to decide on a "common name" based on what contemporary American authors called it? A7V2 (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

No. We do not give a bias to local sources. We use the common name in the global sources.T v x1 21:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you wanted to link with WP:LOCAL as that page looks like its only about establishing notability. In any case, of course we shouldn't ONLY consider what American authors called it, but given that the race was American, we should certainly try to find out what name contemporary American authors called it rather than rely entirely on European sources for establishing a "common name". But I don't think this is the real issue anyway, and I'm more than willing to concede not changing these article names, since there's definitely no denying that a lot of sources DO refer to them as "USGP West". I have added the official names to all the relevant articles using the program covers, but I think the main issue is that there's no need to have separate articles for Grand Prix of Long Beach and United States Grand Prix West, as they were most definitely the same race (for example the organisers include the F1 races in their numbering, and the Wikipedia article for Grand Prix of Long Beach includes the F1 races in its results table anyway. A7V2 (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

2001 Belgian Grand Prix

There's a discussion in progress at Talk:2001 Belgian Grand Prix‎ regarding whether Räikkönen, Irvine, Burti and Alonso's results should be recorded as "Ret" or "DNS". Interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Sauber/Alfa licence change?

We know that Sauber is to be renamed to Alfa Romeo for 2019; are we assuming that their Swiss licence will change, without having any RS evidence of that? The reason I ask is that in Alfa Romeo in Formula One and 2019 Formula One World Championship its flag has been changed to "None" and I changed it in List of Formula One constructors from "Italy" (which certainly has no RS support) back to Switzerland which is what they had last year - and which has since been changed back to Italy again. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

And now it's been changed to "none" by SSSB in List of Formula One constructors too, stating "there is no confirmation as to where the Alfa Romeo f1 team is licensed)". I think we have as much evidence that the Sauber team (regardless of re-badging) is Swiss licensed as we have for any of the other teams' licences for 2019. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

You rather mean "as little evidence" is suppose. What's the source to use a Swiss or Italian flag for Alfa Romeo here?T v x1 17:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Either way works, even if there were zero for them all, they could all be said to have as much as each other. As far as I have seen, there is no evidence that Sauber are changing their licence as well as their name. Their ownership hasn't changed, so the evidence is as it was for 2018 - as with all the other teams that have had the same flags copied from their 2018 entries. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The constructor changed. That necessitates new registrations with the FIA as well as (re-)registering with a national motorsports governing body. We can't thus assume that Alfa Romeo is registered with the Automobile Club de Suisse. Ownership is not really relevant. Scuderia Toro Rosso, for instance, is Austrian-owned but registered in Italy.T v x1 19:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Why would we assume that, as all that's changed is the constructor name, and not the ownership, company name or base location, the choice of licence nationality might change? We don't make that assumption for any of the other teams. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Because a change of constructor necessitates a new registrations and we simply cannot assume they re-register with the same national motorsports governing body. We need to prove that with a source.T v x1 20:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't all licences have to be renewed annually anyway, regardless of whether a name-change has taken place? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that applies to constructors' licences. That's certainly the case with drivers' super licenses, since they don't tend to stick around as long and are dependent on drivers' performances. Regardless, there is a big difference between renewing the an existence license and the registration of new constructor.T v x1 17:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to be consistent across the board with this, and we do generally assume that last year's nationality will be carried into the new season. However, as I am not sure what impact a name change has on the licensing process, I'll accept that the Sauber team licence nationality needs confirmation, so remains unknown for now. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

New article for Racing Point?

It's been confirmed that Force India has changed its constructor name to "Racing Point" via the 2019 FIA entry list, considering its a new constructor shouldn't a new article be created? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Racing Point is the new article. It just needs to be renamed. Force India already exists as an old article. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be classed as a former constructor though? (the 2nd Force India), we've always created a new article for new F1 constructors. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Spyker F1 covers their history from buying out MF1 to when they started as their own constructor the following year, until Force India bought the team out. So, no. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I have renamed the article to reflect the above and moved to Racing Point Formula One Team AdamComer (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

AdamComer, why didn't you wait to see what consensus develops here? This discussion has only been ongoing for about 11 hours, and with only two contributors, each with a different view - so there is no consensus yet! -- DeFacto (talk). 11:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "Racing Point" would be a different team to "Racing Point Force India". Despite there was no buyout in the intervening period, they still have a different name, are therefore a new constructor and should therefore have its own separate article. Unfortunately we cannot refer back to previous cases because as far as I am aware (and I could be wrong) but there is no previous example of where a team has changed its name having raced under a different name after a buyout. Further shouldn't be either Racing Point (this is blue as it is a redirect) or Racing Point (Formula One team) not Racing Point Formula One Team as the former would suggest the "Formula One Team" is part of the team's name when in fact it isn't, the teams name is simple Racing Point.[1]SSSB (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

As was mentioned above, this scenario has happened with a fair few teams, the Spyker team being just one of them. The interim period between the old team being bought and the new season started it was consensus that the Spyker MF1 team was the same team as the Spyker F1 team but a separate entity to MF1, so likewise it's considered that Racing Point Force India is the same team as Racing Point, but is separate to Sahara Force India. Secondly, the reason the 'F1 Team' is part of the article name is because it's in the official entry list as part of their name, you can see the same thing is the case with Haas F1 Team, where the 'F1 Team' is actually part of their name and therefor in the article title. Hope this clears things up a bit? AdamComer (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@AdamComer Yes thanks, I would however still argue we should use the name Racing Point for the article per WP:common name but maybe this is a discussion for after we decided if we need a new article. SSSB (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but that's just not true. Spyker MF1 was most certainly not credited as a separate team. Spyker mas merely treated as a sponsor to MF1 in the latter stages of the 2006 season. All results were credited to MF1, as can be seen in that season's official results. This is clearly different to the 2018 situation where Force India and Racing Point Force India were classified separately by the FIA. Hence the Spyker F1 article merely mentions the the 2006 takeover as background but result and activity wise only contains the 2007 activities. Simultaneously the Midland F1 deals with the entire 2007 season. What we have to do with Racing Point F1 at the moment is difficult right now. We simply don't know yet whether the FIA considers Racing Point Force India and Racing Point F1 as one and the same constructor or as different ones. In any case, if it turns out that the FIA credits the latter as a separate one with separate results we reflect that with a new article. As for the name, per WP:PRECISE I suggest Racing Point F1 team. Racing Point is simply an ambiguous name for the lay reader. Moreover I do not believe that one article from the FOM is enough to declare a common name.T v x1 12:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that Spyker and Racing Point are not exactly the same in terms of the constructor. However I would point out that Frank Williams Racing Cars covers Iso-Marlboro, Williams, and Wolf-Williams cars under a single article. Since "Force India" is now considered to be two separate entities, I have no problem combining nu-Force India with Racing Point. The³5₉ (Talk) 14:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

As for titles, I believe Racing Point is precise enough, there is currently nothing else to really confuse it with, hence no need to disambiguated. Haas F1 has a more precise title because there are several racing teams and companies with the Haas name. The³5₉ (Talk) 14:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with User:The359 in both areas. WP:Precise stats that it must be precise enough to "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." The name "Racing Point" does this as there is not anything else this could refer to. Further the website I cited is not the only one which refers to it simply as racing point. Stats f1 and ESPN do the same. SSSB (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean Racing Point could not refer to anything else? Racing Point is a very vague name. General readers could take this to mean a racing team in any class, a manufacturer or even a circuit. Not every reader is a close follower of motorsport, let alone F1.T v x1 15:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

But anyone who came across it would know by reading the first paragraph that it was a racing ream in F1 but there is no other article on English Wikipedia which the term "Racing Point" could refer to, so "Racing Point" could and should in my opinion be the name of the article per WP:common name as I have already mentioned. SSSB (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how the whole Midland/Spyker comparison is being made when that was a completely different situation, 'Racing Point' is a new constructor so we should create a seperate article not just re-name the RP Force India one. Plus a consensus hasnt been made so I don't know why the changes have already gone through. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd point out that our current McLaren F1 article is simply McLaren despite several other articles about McLaren businesses. This is far more vague than Racing Point is. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

It's obvious article should be under "short name"/constructor name (Racing Point) and Haas F1 Team should be moved to Haas (Formula One). No need to keep full name of team even there are other not linked teams (enough transparent). Eurohunter (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need, or even discussion, to change the Haas article title. It is correct as is. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

No it isn't because it's exception. Would you move "Scuderia Toro Rosso" to "Red Bull Toro Rosso Honda"? Eurohunter (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Haas is not an exception. There are several racing teams with the Haas name, as well as several companies and people. The name is precise because it needs to be. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

"Haas (Formula One)" or "Haas (Formula One team)" is precise as well and follows the rules of disambugation. Eurohunter (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Eurohunter — precision is needed because there have been two unrelated Haas teams in Formula 1: Haas F1 and Haas Lola, a short-lived team from the 1980s. Your proposals, "Haas (Formula One)" and "Haas (Formula One Team)" could apply to both. Plus, there are at least four other Haas teams and companies (some of which are owned by Gene Haas, others of which are not) that have competed in a variety of American motorsports. 1.129.105.195 (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I forgot about this team but it is under "Haas Lola" not "Haas". Looks like "Haas Lola" isn't official name so I would move both articles to "Haas (1985-1986 Formula One team)" and "Haas (2016- Formula One team)". Eurohunter (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but that's just not how Wikipedia works. As for McLaren, that should also be made more precise since simple McLaren can refer to multiple entities.T v x1 18:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Back to the point

So what do people think - should it be a new article for the new constructor name, or are we going to cover two different constructors in the single article? My view at the moment is that as it is still the same team, then their activities should all be contained in the single article. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

There's no need for a second article, the second Force India team should just redirect where necessary to a sole Racing Point article. - J man708 (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

What people think doesn't matter. What the FIA does is what we care about. If the FIA treats Racing Point as a different constructor to Racing Point India with its own separate records we reflect that and create a new article. If not we keep everything in the same article.T v x1 18:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Well it does matter. There is no Wiki policy mandating we follow the FIA, the normal Wiki line is we follow the consensus in reliable sources. We need to see what the consensus here is amongst editors to decide how we play it for this team. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

There is. WP:Verify. We have the obligation to present correct information. We cannot go by a personal preference to credit results to a team which weren't credited to them by the sport itself. We reflect what happened in reality.T v x1 18:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, we can provide equally correct information either way. There is nothing stopping us having one article covering the two different constructor names, and even two different team names, as used by Racing Point UK Limited. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

No we can't. It's one or the other. We can't go list results in article which deals with a team to which those results were not actually credited to.T v x1 20:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

You miss the point, the article would deal with the team to which the results were credited. Now if the FIA decide that 2018 Racing Point and 2019 Racing Point are two different point accruing entities, then the article could cover both, or we could have a separate article for each. Which way we go is entirely up to consensus here - informed, of course, by what the reliable sources do - and not necessarily what the FIA choose to do themselves. -- DeFacto (talk).

Having one article cover what the FIA consider (and therefore what are) two different teams would create a misleading article as Tvx1 points out, you can't attribute one teams results to another, if the FIA consider "Racing Point Force India" and "Racing Point" two teams then we need an article for each, if the FIA consider "Racing Point Force India" and "Racing Point" the same team but with a different name then the results can be kept in one article and the article can keep its current name. SSSB (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

See, at least SSSB understands my point. What the FIA does is what dictates us. That is how all our team articles are arranged simply because that reflect the sole reality. The FIA is the sole authority in charge of crediting results and our articles have to correctly reflect which entities which results actually belong to.T v x1 22:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point too, but disagree with it. We can credit the results to the two differently named teams from the same company in one article as we could in two. That depends on the consensus we reach though, and not what the FIA think. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why can't we have an article called "Racing Point teams", or whatever, that covers the results of both? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Because it would be extremly misleading as I said above. SSSB (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Only if the article is poorly named and/or poorly written. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Putting the results of what the FIA consider two different teams in an article suggesting it were one team would be like if a goal was scored by deflection in association football and FIFA gave credit to the player who kicked the ball but we (wikipedia) gave credit to the person it deflected off, it would give a misleading impression as to the success of the player, the same applies to if the FIA and Formula One. If the FIA decide that "Racing Point is a new team wikipedia must reflect that with a new article. My point is that it is the FIA that determine the results of the race and the championship, they also publish the entries, if the FIA states that "Racing Point" is a new team then it is because they are the only authority with the right to decide this and as news sources get the entries list, and all the results from the FIA who publish this, then if the FIA says it is a new team so should the press and therefore so must we to avoid giving misleading results and to satisfy WP:Verify SSSB (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Are the FIA going to pay Racing Point out on the Concorde Agreement for 2018? I can see the argument for a second article if they didn't, but I'm under the impression they will. - J man708 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

SSSB, I understand your point completely, but disagree with it, and think your logic is flawed. Even if the FIA do decide that the renamed team will be treated as a different team, that does not mean that we cannot document them both in the same article. Indeed there would be little point duplicating content (company name, background, history, personnel, base, etc.) as both would be identical. And there is no reason why such an article would be misleading as the results for each of the two names would be documented separately within the article and the distinction clearly explained in the prose and in the lead. Anyway, this is all academic at the moment, let's wait and see how the FIA decide to treat the team rename. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

We have seperate articles for Arrows Grand Prix International and Footwork Arrows and for March Engineering and Leyton House Racing. How is this different? --Falcadore (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Per Racing Point themselves, the team name will change again before the start of the season. I suggest no renaming of articles or creation of new articles until such time that a new name is announced. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

However, the article has already been moved. I think it should be moved back to "Racing Point Force India" and no further changes should be made until new information becomes available.T v x1 17:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I also think that the article should be moved back to "Racing Point Force India" and that we should wait until the official announcement from the team. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Except the team appeared on the provisional entry list as "Racing Point", not "Racing Point Force India". Even if the team have stated their intentions to rename themselves, that does not mean that it will happen, and they are clearly no longer associated with the Force India name. The only reason they kept the name in the second half of 2018 was because of the deal to keep racing. 1.129.108.137 (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Except we don’t know whether the governing body of the sport considers Racin Point Force India and Racing Point to be the same team or different teams.T v x1 21:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@1.129.108.137 - The team itself is still branded as "Racing Point Force India" on it's official website and social media so it would just look like we are jumping the gun on the subject, The teams personnel have made it public that they won't be called "Racing Point" next year as that name is just a placeholder for the FIA entry list. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

That's the best you have got? Websites are not updated in real time, and it's unreasonable to expect them to be (especially in December). Half a dozen F2 drivers have been announced for 2019, but the F2 website still lists the 2018 drivers.

The team have also made it clear that they won't be called "Racing Point Force India", either, and given that the FIA have published an entry list that contains no mention of Force India, moving the Racing Point article back to "Racing Point Force India" is incorrect, short-sighted, and above all else, stupid. 1.129.108.137 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I suggest keeping the article as is. If changing it cannot satisfy everything, then there is no point in changing it. No name is better than the current one or any other at this given moment. All we have is speculation to go off of. We will have answers in a few months. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@1.129.108.137 - I don't see any reason to change the article title if the team in present time is still called "Racing Point Force India", I'm not saying that's what the team will be called next year but that's what they are called at the present and the article should reflect that. The team itself hasn't made any formal announcement of a name change so we should wait. I do think it should be mentioned on the article that "Racing Point F1 Team" is being used in the 2019 entry list but that it's being used as a placeholder until the actual name is announced per that source from team personnel. By the way little remarks like "That's the best you have got" don't help this discussion it just makes you look incredibly obnoxious and difficult to work with. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change the article title if the team in present time is still called "Racing Point Force India"

Neither do I—but the team is not called "Racing Point Force India" anymore. The entry list names them as "Racing Point". It's not a summary of driver contracts by the FIA. The teams had to submit their entries and part of that is telling the FIA who they are. 1.129.108.159 (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I would point out in the past that the FIA included Honda F1 Team on a pre-season entry list when the team was for sale, knowing full well the team name would change (and become Brawn). However I believe that entry list also made note of that fact. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

We should just hold off from changing the article title to "Racing Point" as the placeholder entry doesn't represent the team at present as its still officially "Racing Point Force India" and the team is yet to announce its actual entry name, we should just write a short sentence in the opening paragraph mentioning the temporary entry name and that the actual name is yet to be announced per the most recent source. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

its still officially "Racing Point Force India"

Do you have a source for that? Because this one says something else entirely:

"However in the official 2019 F1 entry list that was published by the FIA on Friday night, it was confirmed the Silverstone-based squad would be fully rebranded."

I find it very difficult to believe that one of the most reliable publications out there would either misread an entry list or miss a key piece of information like that. 1.129.108.220 (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Except, it has actually been moved to just that name shortly after this discussion began without a consensus existing to do so. I still feel that should be reverted. And in the same vain as what The359 was telling, an early 2005 entry list listed Jaguar which would ultimately be replaced by an entirely new constructor called Red Bull Racing.T v x1 15:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I just don't think we should rush into changing/moving things before we have all the information. ([2] This source tells us that "Racing Point" is just a place holder on the provisional entry list.) Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yet that rush is exactly what happened shortly after this discussion started and what should be reverted.T v x1 14:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who rushed into this I literally just asked a question which started this discussion and that's it. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn’t claim you moved. I just a rushed move happened and that it should be reverted.T v x1 18:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Tvx1 that the name change should be reverted. But our top priority should be to make the page look presentable because right now it is a mess. The name mentioned in the title is different to the one in the info box. There are more problems but i will leave it there for now. That is why I agree with Tvx1 that we should change the article back as it would be less work than to fix said article only to change it back should the need arise. Meanwhile we would include a template in "racing point force india" directing to this discussion and the "racing point" will simply have to be a red wikilink whilst we contine this discussion or a new article which can later be deleted if it is found to be redundant (there's only a few sentences to put anyway). This way we can continue this discussion in the background with a neat racing point force india article as opposed it being a mess or us changing everything and including a section on a name change which are edits which we may have to end up reverting. This is a temporary solution which I feel we should impose for the good of the reader and so we don't waste time ed8ting things which may be changed back depending on the outc9me of this discussion. SSSB (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1 - Sorry about that I thought you was accusing me of being the one who's rushing things, for now I think the article should be reverted back to "Racing Point Force India". Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This source tells us that "Racing Point" is just a place holder on the provisional entry list.

It also tells use that the team no longer has any association with Force India. Moving the article back to "Racing Point Force India" is therefore entirely inappropriate. While the team have stated their intention to change their name, that does not mean that it will happen. You will recall that HRT originally wanted to be known as "Hispania Racing Team", but the FIA did not recognise "Hispania" as a word and they had to settle for HRT.

The provisional entry list may well be provisional, but it is nevertheless an entry list produced by the FIA. In the eyes of the FIA, the team is now Racing Point, not Racing Point Force India. 1.129.108.24 (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

If you are willing to tidy up the article that is fine, but I wouldn't want to waste time doing this if it may need to be reverted pending the result of this discussion. This is why I suggested a temporary revert whilst we discuss this. Then the article name can be changed or a new article created after a consensus has been reached. SSSB (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@1.129.108.24 - "It also tells use that the team no longer has any association with Force India." The sources say that they won't be known as "Force India" in 2019 nobody is arguing that fact, but the team itself is still under the "Racing Point Force India" name at this present date and have not announced anything themselves on being known as just "Racing Point" we're still in 2018 and we're not in a rush so just wait for things to be announced. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

the team itself is still under the "Racing Point Force India" name at this present date

I asked you to provide evidence of this, which you still have not done. 1.129.111.222 (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The teams website and social media is a huge indicator and don't bother with that poor site updating excuse because it doesn't hold any weight as sites these days can be easily updated. May I ask why you're in such a rush to change things without a overall consensus? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The teams website and social media is a huge indicator

Both of those amount to self-published sources.

don't bother with that poor site updating excuse because it doesn't hold any weight as sites these days can be easily updated

Oh, I won't. I'm not the one building a flimsy argument that ignores a reliable source.

May I ask why you're in such a rush to change things without a overall consensus?

Why are you so eager to ignore reliable sources? 1.129.111.185 (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:SELFPUB, self-published sources are good for information solely about themselves. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Attacking each other isn't going to help us forward in any way. Pleas just refrain from that. Prisonermonkeys, as you should be full well aware know by now, we're not certain that Racing Point Force India and Racing Point are considered to be the same competitor. Therefore, listing the 2018 results in an article on a prospective new 2019 competitor using a provisional name is simply misleading and probably outright incorrect.T v x1 14:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@1.129.108.24 - I don't see how you can claim that I'm ignoring sources when I openly acknowledged them in previous posts, I honestly don't want to get into a argument with you so I will just drop it. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how you can claim that I'm ignoring sources when I openly acknowledged them in previous posts

Because a source from the FIA, which we recognise as the primary authority on this subject, clearly states that the team is currently known as Racing Point and no longer has any connection to Force India. You, however, are advocating for a name that claims that relationship with Force India is alive and well. 1.129.111.247 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The entry list is only "provisional" meaning that things might change before the start of the season, top personnel of the team have stated in sources that "Racing Point" doesn't reflect the team currently as its just a placeholder on the entry list until the actual new name is announced so until then it would be better if the article was titled under the the teams current name (which is still in use on the teams website and social media) of "Racing Point Force India". Have it mentioned in the article but it doesn't facilitate a name change just yet as the name used in the entry list is temporary. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The entry list is only "provisional" meaning that things might change before the start of the season

And that's your problem—you have no way of knowing if they will change. Those "top personnel" have said that they intend to change, but that does not guarantee that it will happen. 1.129.111.101 (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, Prisonermonkeys, the much bigger problem is that we don’t know whether the 2018 competitor and the 2019 competitor are one and the same. The only thing we can demonstrate with reliable sources is who the 2018 results belong to. That’s why we shouldn’t be mixing up 2018 and 2019 in one article until the situation becomes more clear.T v x1 13:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Like I said before I'm dropping this now because it's clearly not getting us anywhere its just become bickering and I'm with Tvx1 on this issue. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The article title needs to be reverted back (I'm unable to do it). Speedy Question Mark (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Once you prove that the team is still known as Force India in the eyes if the FIA. 1.129.107.81 (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Quite on the contrary, you are the one who needs to prove that the FIA considers that Racing Point Force India and Racing Point are the same entity. As long as that hasn't been demonstrated we cannot keep the 2018 and 2019 records in one and the same article.T v x1 14:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

After all this time it's still not been reverted which leaves the article inconsistent with its own title. Who do I have to contact in order to get the article title reverted to "Racing Point Force India"? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

This should help you. 1.129.106.255 (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You're very helpful!. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I try my best. But I am quite serious—you need a consensus and you don't currently have one. 1.129.107.196 (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

One doesn't need consenus to make content factually correct. At this point there is no evidence that the FIA considers Racing Point Force India and Racing Point the same entity.T v x1 13:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to ignore the procedure simply because it is inconvenient. The provisional entry list clearly demonstrates that Racing Point is no longer affiliated with Force India, so moving the article back to Racing Point Force India is wrong. 1.129.109.94 (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

No it isn't. As you point out yourself, there is no affiliation between the current Racing Point and Force India. Therefore listing the information on both incarnations in the same article is just wrong. There probably should be a new article on Racing Point and Racing Point Force India should only deal with what happened in 2018.T v x1 13:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I have decided to be a bit pro-active, even on the first of January, and created a draft for the new article on Racing Point F1. We can mould that further and publish in the main space when/if the FIA publishes more information on the transition. If they are renamed again we can just change the names in the draft. If the FIA does end up treating Racing Point Force India and the 2019 entry as one and the same entity we can simply merge the relevant content from the draft and have it subsequently deleted. With that now in place we should have all thing covered until more information transpires.T v x1 15:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Good solution. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems that Prisonermonkeys once again cannot stand not haven given personal approval for the move and they have now proposed a counter-move.T v x1 18:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I came across https://www.formula1.com/en/teams/Force-India.html (Racing Point's profile on the official F1 website) today, doesn't this suggest that the FIA consider Racing Point Force India and Racing Point as the same team. Shouldn't we therefore go ahead and move Racing Point Force India to Racing Point F1 Team? Or do we need something more explicit from the FIA? SSSB (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Ostensibly, yes, and I think it's quite reasonable to conclude that Racing Point and Force India are separate entities. Especially given the deal that was struck to allow RP to keep FI's prize money which they would otherwise have lost.

However, the URL you provided still uses the "Force India" name and there are a few bits and pieces that suggest the website isn't enough on its own to justify the change. 1.129.105.151 (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It appears the team have settled on simply "Racing Point" after a deal with Lola fell through. Multiple sources confirm this including the teams official Twitter account, does this now justify the change? https://twitter.com/RacingPointF1/status/1092710009706893312 https://www.racefans.net/2019/02/04/force-india-officially-becomes-racing-point-after-dropping-plan-to-use-lola-name/ http://f1i.com/news/329005-racing-point-f1-confirms-2019-name-change.html AdamComer (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The lack of change was never because there was no confirmation of a permentant name but rather if Racing point force india and racing point were the same team or not, the two sources you quoted don't confirm anyhting. SSSB (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Flagicons in car infoboxes

I have started a discussion about the use of flagicons in car infoboxes at Talk:McLaren MCL34. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Nève in 1978 Belgian Grand Prix

In the articles of Patrick Nève and March Grand Prix results, Nève was DNPQ in Zolder 1978, but in the article 1978 Belgian Grand Prix does not appear. Where this error? --Adriel 00 (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

In statsf1.com appears as "Car unavailable". --Adriel 00 (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Motor Sport says "The previous week the rest of the hopefuls who wanted to take part had a qualifying session all to themselves ... and the result was that Bruno Giacomelli (third works McLaren M26/7), Rolf Stommelen (Arrows), Rene Arnoux (Martini MK23/1) and Keijo Rosberg (Theodore) all qualified to go forward into the official practice days ... Those left behind on the Thursday before race week were Rebaque (Lotus 78), Merzario with his own car, and Lunger (McLaren 964 M26/6). When this initial weeding out had taken place the Belgian organisers tried to infiltrate two of their own drivers into the system, these being Patrick Neve and Bernard de Dryver, but Bernard ... Ecclestone would have none of it, so the two Belgian hopefuls became spectators.", which suggests to me that Nève and de Dryver did not actually participate in the pre-qualifying session. Motor Sport lists Nève and de Dryver as "DNP" ("did not practice") rather than "NPQ" ("Did not pre-qualify"). DH85868993 (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

They did appear on the race's entry list, but were apparently "scratched though" at some point. That would suggest a "WD".T v x1 21:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

In 1978 Formula One season directly does not appear. --Adriel 00 (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest listing Nève and de Dryver's result as "DNP" in all the relevant articles, since we have a reference for that result (Motor Sport). DH85868993 (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. --Adriel 00 (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I have already made the corrections of Nève but not those of de Dryver. It would be nice if they put the Motorsport Magazine reference to the text that I changed in the pilot's article. --Adriel 00 (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Garvey Team Lotus and World Wide Racing

I'm wondering if Garvey Team Lotus and World Wide Racing should really be considered to be part of Team Lotus or not. Currently, for 1970 the three teams appear as one (and all link to Team Lotus), although Alex Soler-Roig raced under Garvey Team Lotus once, and World Wide Racing twice, and never for the "real" Team Lotus, and no-one else drove for them in 1970. For 1971 and 1972, World Wide Racing again appears with Team Lotus on the list of entries (and again link to Team Lotus), although only Emerson Fittipaldi raced, and just one race in each year, both times at the Italian GP (aparently, according to Swedish Wikipedia and 1971 Italian Grand Prix, due to legal issues surrounding Jochen Rindt's death in 1970 at Monza). On both Fittipaldi's and Soler-Roig's Wikipedia articles, their "Complete Formula One World Championship results" table shows the correct team names (although all linking to Team Lotus), whereas the Lotus Grand Prix results has a few inconsistencies, namely that for 1970 all three of Soler-Roig's entries are under "Results of other Lotus cars" (so NOT Team Lotus), with the name World Wide Racing (not linked to anything), with no mention of Garvey Team Lotus. Fittipaldi's 1971 and 1972 results are just slotted into the "Works team results" section without any mention of World Wide Racing.

It's also worth pointing out that ChicaneF1 has a separate page for them: [3]. I wonder what other's thoughts are, as at the very least it would be good to fix these and any other inconsistencies (as I suppose this could cause issues with other data and such as Fittipaldi actually won the 1972 Italian GP!). A7V2 (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

John Surtees in 1961 Monaco Grand Prix

In the articles 1961 Monaco Grand Prix, Cooper Grand Prix results and Reg Parnell Racing, Surtees appears as finished 11th, but in Yeoman Credit Racing, 1961 Formula One season and in his personal article appears as Retired. We should also see the two pilots who finished behind him, according to the article of the GP. --Adriel 00 (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Both Stats F1 and the official F1 archive both show that he failed to finish but have still classified him in 11th place, the same can be said of Jo Bonnier and Tony Brooks in p12 and p13 respectivly, from this I think it safe to say that both approaches could be considered correct. These days a driver is classified if they have competed more than 90% of the race distance. This would tend to suggest they should not be classifed as Surtess did 68% but the rules around classification were different back then, for example in this grand prix Jim Clark 'finished' the race but 11 laps down, doing 89% of the race, but he is still classified. To me it looks like 6 of one and half a dozen of the other but we should decide one or the other for the sake of consistency. SSSB (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Seeing other results until 1961 (since 1962 no longer) I believe that 50% was taken. I would say that you have to put 11th, 12th and 13th, respectively. --Adriel 00 (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox F1 driver

I'm not the best with infobox templates, can someone take a look at it and see what's going on with the Teams row? I noticed that most former F1 drivers no longer have their list of teams visible in the infobox, but the data is there. The problem seems to be that the entry is written as "Team(s)" instead of "Teams" and the infobox is ignoring it. Wondering if there's a way to update the infobox to support that formatting without editing every driver page. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: It seems there were a number of changes made to Template:Infobox F1 driver by Jay D. Easy (courtesy ping) on 20 February. These included changes to the |Teams= parameter (as well as other parameters. It seems this no longer displays on the driver pages (I only looked at 2 or 3) because it is not written as it is in the template documentation (an 'unsupported parameter'). I am not sufficiently versed in the infobox syntax to figure out exactly how to fix it. Eagleash (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

They changed it so that you have to either use |team= or |teams= as parameter for the information to display. I wonder whether that's a change we really like. If so, we need to update a lot of infoboxes.T v x1 17:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Didn't like the capitalisation apparently. May or may not have a point but it's worked fine for some time and the change has disrupted many articles as Tvx1 says. Don't really think it's a change for the better overall and in view of the work required (by editors other than the one who made the change) I think may be best to go back to how it was previously. Eagleash (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it's ended up that way by mistake. They intended to add non-capitalised parameters in addition to what was already there, and not to replace them. They kept all the other old parameters, including "Teams", but lost "Team(s)". -- DeFacto (talk). 18:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Your change seems to have fixed it, thanks. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't mean there won't be other problems though! -- DeFacto (talk). 18:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey, yeah I changed a couple of things. I'm sorry if I broke anything—that was never my intention. I've been meaning to get back to the infobox but haven't really had the time to get around to it. In any case, I understand that any issues I caused have been fixed. So thanks! Jay D. Easy (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Wicka wicka, DeFacto, this still isn't properly fox. The label is now always plural, which wasn't the case before Jay D. Easy's changes were made. This is a problem when there is only one team entered for that parameter, like for instance for Yuji Ide.T v x1 21:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it gave that plural label with the old version too. The solution is to use the singular parameter - "team" or "Team" if there was only one. Whist looking at that, I found it reported "Team(s)" as an unknown parameter, which I have now fixed too. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Not quite, the "s" was between brackets in the old label.T v x1 14:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Racing Point article moved

Spartantrex has moved Racing Point Force India to Racing Point UK Ltd without consensus, or starting a discussion, are we happy with this? I for one am not.

We have previously agreed to keep it until we got a clear stance, and more importantly it should in fact link to Racing Point F1 team as far as I can see the current name of the article is even more incorrect than the original.

Personally I think we should move the article to Racing Point F1 team.

For now I have reverted as there was no consensus for move (and a consensus on this page for no move). SSSB (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think the "Force India" name should have been removed some time ago. --Adriel 00 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The article should be renamed to Racing Point F1 or Racing Point F1 Team and not in two weeks or a month but now. It's a very straightforward decision to make and we don't need endless discussions. Force India is no more. RafaelS1979 (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. A move was proposed on its talk page and it was met with disapproval. It makes very clear the 2018's Racing Point Force India and 2019' Racing Point are to be considered separate constructors with their own separate records until evidence of the contrary is found. The latter would thus need a separate article. Might a remind people that, as mentioned in the previous discussions, a draft already exists for the 2019 constructor and that that can be expanded with the recent information. Discussion on the exact title can also be held there. It does need much to be able to be moved to main space. If it turns out that the aforementioned constructor is considered to be the same by the FIA we can always request to merge the former with the latter.T v x1 00:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Always have to add something to have the last word or saying the opposite of me, Tvx1, can't help yourself can't you? Just to let you know, the F1 project doesn't need your approval. We've never seen eye to eye both of us and it won't start today. RafaelS1979 (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal comments. They don’t help this discussion in any way. The only concern here is that we list a competitor’s record with the competitor the FIA credits it to.T v x1 07:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It should have been moved, but not to "Racing Point UK Ltd" as that fails WP:COMMONNAME. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

" 2018's Racing Point Force India and 2019' Race Point are to be considered separate constructors." Well are they seprate constructors? Racing Point UK Limited bougt the property of Force India and raced under the name Racing Point Force India. Racing Point UK Limited are now in 2019 racing under the name SportPesa Racing Point F1 Team. I don't see why you want to have seperate articles about it. Both entries are from Racing Point UK Limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobo151 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Lobo151:

"Both entries are from Racing Point UK Limited."

While that is true, the name "Racing Point UK Ltd." fails WP:COMMONNAME which states:

"Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) [emphasis mine] as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.

The name "Racing Point UK Ltd." is only used in a small minority of articles. It is the company name, which is used so that the team can act as a business. It is certainly not one that is recognisable or in widespread usage, and so is inappropriate as an article title. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thats clear, but what I mean is that it should be one article because it is one entry. Making 2 articles for the 2018 and for the 2019 entry is in my opinion not correct and makes is unnecessary complicated. Lobo151 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It might be complicated, but factually it is correct. If the FIA treats them as separate competitors with separate results records we have to follow that. I can already see a glaring difference in the fact that the 2018 constructor was name Force India-Mercedes and the 2019 one is named Racing Point-Mercedes. Can barely be more contrasting. Moreover the team themselves has multiple claims on their site that they are new team. This situations is no different to Virging/Marussia/MRT or Lotus/Caterham or Renault/Lotus/Renault.T v x1 14:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

First and foremost, I believe we should use Racing Point as the title. Simple and nothing to disambiguate.

As for the articles themselves, we have many exceptions to our own "constructors get separate articles" ruling, especially when it comes to the sale of teams. The biggest examples for either argument are BMW.Sauber's results being maintained on Sauber and for the separate articles of Leyton House Racing and March Engineering. I believe that the article on Racing Point Force India is something that would be so incredibly short that it does not warrant a separate article for what is, unarguably, the exact same team and constructor simply under a different title. I know it may be confusing for readers, but it is something that could easily be explained in a paragraph of prose covering all the necessary articles. It is clear from the FIA that ur-Force India and nu-Force India are separate entities and should be kept separate, but there is no indication that nu-Force India's results will not be retained with Racing Point. I believe the best explanation of this is similar to the old privateer teams who did not build their own cars, such as BMS Scuderia Italia, who used two different constructors over their life but we still maintain a single article for the team.

Force India results and history up until the buyout -> Force India

Force India VJM11 results and history for the entire 2018 season -> Force India VJM11 with two separate entries in the results table.

Racing Point Force India results and history -> Racing Point

Racing Point results and history -> Racing Point

List of constructors should list two Force Indias with an explanation, just as we have done with the various Lotuses, with latter Force India directing to Racing Point The³5₉ (Talk) 16:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Length of the articles is never our priority. Factual corectness is. If the FIA credits the contested results to seperate competitors, we must reflect that. I strongly suggest we keep the articles seperate as long as we don’t have evidence that the FIA considers them one and the same. It’s most clear and we can always merge them latee if needed. Merging is easy and cheap.T v x1 18:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Seperate the items? I do not think it's necessary at all. I guess the name "Force India" in 2018 was legal, to use the same chassis, among other things. If you separate this, would not you do the same with Politoys, ISO-Marlboro, Frank Williams Racing Cars and Williams-Wolf? --Adriel 00 (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say that before separating them and waiting, let them like that and wait. In this way we do not create so much confusion. (The writing comes directly from the translator...) --Adriel 00 (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

We did whatever the FIA in those cases. We reflect whomever results are credited to in reality. It’s not up to a bunch of wikipedians to decide to whom results belong. We just reflect the facts.T v x1 20:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

But, of course, the FIA cannot dictate what article scope we use. We could, say, have one article for the Racing Point UK company, and document all the teams/constructors they have entered into F1 competition in that same article. The same could be done for Sauber Motorsport too. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

And as already pointed out, we put Sauber and BMW.Sauber in the same article. A rename is not reason enough to consider the team a separate constructor from nu-Force India, and at the moment there is no evidence that Racing Point's statistics are reset to zero. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

We list those results in BMW in Formula One as well. That situation is thus not that black and white as you present it.T v x1 00:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nor is "every manufacturer must he separate" black and white either, so claiming we must do it because of the FIA is not a solid reason, hence the discussion. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

And we still haven't decided how to handle Sauber's data when they badge as Alfa Romeo Racing for 2019. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear that Sauber and Alfa Romeo are two separate teams. I would even go so far as to say that the 2019 Alfa team is different to the 1980s Alfa team. A paragraph in the Sauber article linking to the Alfa article and explaining the change should be enough. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I feel like having a separate article for Racing Point Force India is completely unnecessary. To say that because the FIA considers things to be separate, we should here too is ridiculous (of course I'm not saying it shouldn't be taken into account!). In the "International Cup for F1 Manufacturers" era (1958-1980), constructors were always considered to be chassis-engine combinations, so it was not at all uncommon to have one "manufacturer" be considered as multiple manufacturers (an perfect example is the 1966 Formula One season). This did not end in 1981, however. I'm not sure when this practice ended, but certainly in the 1980s if a team changed engine (or used more than one engine) during a season, they were considered to be different "constructors" for the purposes of scoring championship points (see 1983 Formula One World Championship for a good example of this). However, I can't imagine many would think it's necessary to have a different article for each Chassis-Engine combination. Long story short, I think it's quite clear that the constructor was Force India throughout 2018, but the entrant changed to Racing Point. From the F1 website "As the tight Perez-Ocon rivalry continues, the team drop toward the rear of the midfield amid financial uncertainty, culminating in new ownership – and a new championship entry – from August’s Belgian GP onwards." [4]. So in summary, my view is that there is no need for a separate article Racing Point Force India, and that the results of 2018 (Belgium onwards) belong on BOTH articles, since Force India was the constructor, and Racing Point was the entrant (and of course something making this part clear in each article). A7V2 (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your view, but that's just not how Wikipedia works. We just don't synthesize how we think the situation should be in reality. We reflect what the sourced facts tell us the situation is in real life. The sourced facts is that Force India and Racing Point Force India are separate entities. We have many sources in the article on the latter which substantiate the separation between the two competitors and that the results achieved by Racing Point Force India do not belong to Force India in any way. Similarly there is no evidence at this point that the sport's governing body considers Racing Point Force India and Racing Point to be the same competitors. Most indicators actually point to the contrary. Everything suggests that Australia 2019 will be Racing Point's very first entry. That's what we need separate articles at this time. Otherwise we would be presenting our readers with figures which are factually incorrect. And this not just strictly about Chassis-Engine combinations. It's simply not true that we have separate articles for each one of those.T v x1 16:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

But Tvx1, none of that is a valid reason not to have a single article for them with the different competitor entities all documented in it. There's no Wikipedia policy that says we can't cover two, or three, or more, F1 competitors in the same article. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes there is. It's called WP:Verify. We simply cannot go and make our own results totals as we would like them to have been. We have to reflect reality. That's just not up for debate.T v x1 17:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

We are talking about documenting closely related competitor entities (they might be managed by the same company as with Racing Point UK's activities) in the same article, not making-up our own results! You seem to be misunderstanding WP:Verify. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused, what can we not verify about Racing Point Force India and Racing Point being the same team? The necessity to separate articles by constructor is our own synthesis. We have several articles that combine different iterations of the same team name. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

We simply cannot verify that the FIA considers them the same team by crediting the 2018 and 2019 entries and results to one and the same team. Just how many times has that been explained throughout this discussion?T v x1 13:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

As with the Sauber-Alfa situation, no matter what the company decide to call their team this year, it is exactly the same team that competed last year. We can add a new section to the article to document it under its new name, and when we find out how the FIA have decided to allocate their points, we can mirror that in the new section. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear Tvx1, I meant to say that even though the FIA considered each chassis-engine combination to be a separate constructor, on Wikipedia this is NOT the case (for the purposes of having an article for each constructor). I meant this as an example of that we don't necessarily need to do what they do. Also, on the subject of what the FIA wants us to do, they themselves have not separated Racing Point from Racing Point Force India on the F1 website (not yet at least). As for whether or not they are the same entrant, it doesn't really matter. It's not really debatable that whether or not it is considered to be a new entrant, it isn't actually (it's well documented that Racing Point Force India was a placeholder name due to naming regulations once a season has started), so why the need for multiple articles? All the info about the 2018 team Racing Point Force India can be put in a separate section of the Racing Point article. A7V2 (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It could be put as "Antecedent". --Adriel 00 (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's take a different approach here. I think the solution can be found by answering this question:

What should we do if we do not get confirmation from the FIA?

For this to work, we should assume that we already have everything that we need to properly represent the teams and/or that we won't get anything more.

In the case of Racing Point, I think it is most reasonable to say that a new constructor was created in August 2018. Everything we know about the takeover of the team says that they acquired Force India's assets and entry then. They had to continue using the Force India name for regulatory purposes and to be entitled to the prize money. By all accounts, everyone related to the Force India identity (particularly Vijay Mallya and Subrata Roy) was out of the team. For all intents and purposes, they were a new constructor under an old name.

As for Alfa Romeo, everyone from the Sauber team is still present, but the situation is comparable to their time as BMW Sauber; the difference is that the Sauber name is not being used. The team have confirmed that the chassis will be an Alfa Romeo and the regulations state that the chassis name must contain the constructor name; ergo, Alfa Romeo is a new constructor separate from Sauber. I would further argue that the new Alfa is separate to the Alfa of the 1980s; in the 1980s, Alfa entered the sport directly, but here it appears the team is using the name under licence from the Fiat Group and that the involvement of the manufacturer Alfa Romeo is minimal at best.

I'm just a little concerned that we're going to spend so long waiting for clarification from the FIA that we are going to miss the opportunity to get on top of this. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Unbelievable that this discussion is still going on. For example on the french wiki the https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racing_Point_F1_Team incorporates when Racing Point bought Force India before the Belgium Grand Prix to the actual team of 2019. But here it's a different story because we have to talk and talk without finding a solution and it's always the same person at the center of it. There's a draft for Racing Point F1 Team, just publish it and we'll work around it like they did on the french wiki. My goodness this discussion has to end. RafaelS1979 (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979 — it's frustrating, I know, but we cannot simply do what another wiki does because they are doing it. Especially when people are still questioning the sources. I think some editors are hoping for some kind of statement from the FIA to clarify things, but I doubt we're going to get it. It might be worth taking this to RfC and get an outsider's perspective. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the FIA clarify the situation? They have to credit the 2019 and beyond results to someone. At the latest we'll get the necessary information once the information for the first GP Weekend starts being published. That's why the draft was created as well, we can make that ready, under the assumption that the 2019 constructor is a separate one, for instantaneous use and if the contrary does actually pan out it's a small effort to have a merge executed.T v x1 13:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

We can add a new section to the article for the team under its name for this year, to document it for 2019 and when the time comes, treat any points they win in the same way as the FIA do. We don't necessarily need to have a different article for each set of points, that would be ridiculous, especially when everything but the notional "constructor" name is exactly the same. Do you think teams empty their trophy cabinets each time their name changes, and start again? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's basically exactly what does happen from the records book point of view. And I'm pretty certain that the Silverstone base does not store the race win trophies that were assembled when Jordan operated from there anymore. I'm pretty certain these reside with Mr. E. Jordan himself. We can always have a mother article on the operating company, Racing Point UK, operating both competitors, similar to our Manor Motorsport article with regards to Virgin, Marussia and MRT. But as we have always have done, we need to have separate articles for separate competitors since that is the most efficient and clear way to show our readers which competition record belongs to which competitor. Just look at the poor way the BMW Sauber situation is dealt with on Wikipedia, even those some cite that as the prime example on how we should deal with Racing Point. Currently Wikipedia lists the victory in the 2008 Canadian Grand Prix to three different competitors. It's credited to Sauber, to BMW and within that last article to yet another competitor called BMW Sauber. It's an utterly confusing situation for our general reader and quite simply a factual incorrect one. In reality, the sport's governing body credited that win, as well as the entire competitive record of the team named BMW Sauber to one competitor and we should finally make an effort to make Wikipedia match the real life facts. And in this case we should simply prevent such an utterly confusing situation to arise in the first place.T v x1 17:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1:

"Why wouldn't the FIA clarify the situation?"

I don't think anyone is disputing the idea that [Sahara] Force India and Racing Point are separate constructors, but the team us no longer using the Force India name—it's not on the season entry list—so keeping "Racing Point Force India" as the articld title would be a mistake. The question nobody seems to be able to answer is whether Racing Point Force India was a) part of Force India, b) part of Racing Point, or c) a separate, temporary constructor. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This has been explained countless of times to you and still you don't get it?? There is no intention whatsoever to document the 2019 events in an article called "Racing Point Force India" because the situation appears to be your c). The situation looks very similar to the changeover from Marussia to MRT. When the Manor-operated Marussia team was taken over, the constructor remained Marussia for another full season, before the new owner finally changed it to MRT for what turned out to be a lone season. The latter was a separate constructor with its own record and thus own Wikipedia article. The Force India situation is similar though this take-over took place mid-season. Furthermore, in an unprecedented move the FIA declared "Racing Point Force India" a full new entry/constructor with a new record credited with their very first entry in Belgium 2018. Now, prior to the new season, the new owner has executed a complete changeover, in the same vain as the creation of MRT, with every aspect which tells us about the constructor having changed just like with the MRT case. Among these are the constructor name (Force India-Mercedes -> Racing Point-Mercedes) and the chassis designation naming pattern (VJMXX -> RPXX). These are aspects which suggest a new constructor debuts in 2019. The final confirmation comes when we know to whom the entries and results are credited. But there really is enough evidence already for us to start a separate article for Racing Point F1 (for which there already is a draft) already. If it does turn out to be needed, we can have a merge executed. That's easy and cheap.T v x1 23:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Grand Prix articles' infoboxes

With the new season not underway yet and still some time at our hands to do some cleanup, it would like to raise an issue I have gotten aware of. The infoboxes in our general articles on Grands Prix (e.g. Australian Grand Prix, German Grand Prix) seem to have the tendency to be massively skewed towards the most recent edition of said race. This is especially apparent in article on Grands Prix, like the two I mentioned, which have been held on various circuits. Basically, their infoboxes are mostly a copy of the infoboxes in the specific articles on the latest edition of said Grand Prix. This is very apparent in cases like the French Grand Prix, where the infobox mostly deals with last year's race an the version of Paul Ricard it used despited that Grand Prix having been held at 16 different venues throughout history. I feel that this is far from the guidelines on infoboxes which suggest that they deal with the key facts of the entire article. In some cases this also creates an undue emphasis on the latest edition. European Grand Prix was a prime example of the latter, when the article's infobox primarily dealt with the race's lone edition in Azerbaijan even though it's much more notable for its Nürburgring incarnation for instance, until a user named LukeSurl made an edit making it resemble more closely at what these infoboxes should do. Any thought on this matter?T v x1 14:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I would not object to the "Last race" information being reduced to just a link to the most recent running of the race (similar to the "First held" field). All the info currently in the "Last race" section would be available in the infobox of the linked article, i.e. just one click away. It would also stop the phenomenon of well-meaning editors incorrectly updating the pole position details of the previous year's race immediately after qualifying for the current year's race, which occurs quite often. DH85868993 (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Tvx1. For races which have been held at multiple circuits there is too much emphasis on where it's currently/most recently held, and it makes any races which alternate quite confusing. I also like the idea of having the most recent race only be a link.A7V2 (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I am also in agreement with Tvx1, a grand prix infobox should cover all the grand prix with that name without an emphasis on the most recent iteration of the event. SSSB (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The OP here has well-described my reasoning for editing European Grand Prix. I can't speak for the general case, but in that specific instance the emphasis on the last iteration was actively misleading, and counter to the aim of helping readers quickly access correct and relevant information. --LukeSurl^{t c} 13:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The order of the cars on Template:F1 cars xxxx

On the Template for F1 cars its not clear in which order the cars appear in, Template:F1 cars 2014 till now lists them in alphabetical order by chassis as is 1950 till 1977 however 1978 till 2013 the cars are listed in the order of the constructors championships for those respective years. I feel this should be standardised, which approach do we prefer?

Personally I am in favour of lising alphabetically. SSSB (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Alphabetical sounds logical to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the listing of their position in the constructors' championship the previous year. RafaelS1979 (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979:, why? I believe that sorting alphabetically makes more sense. It means that you can easily follow a constructors cars through the years and it makes it easier if you are looking for a specific car, the only benefit, as far as I can see, of sorting by the constructors world championship is so you can see how the car performed relatively or where it finished in the championship which can be seen easier in the article for the season or in the article for the car. SSSB (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of a navigation template is to allow ease of access for users. The average user is not likely to know the constructors standings from the previous season, and will therefore have to read the whole list in order to find either a specific car or just to see all the cars. Alphabetical order is the easiest way for a user to search. This is a car template, not a constructors standings template. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

No question they should be done in alphabetical order, especially since the constructors' championship is for constructors, not cars (in the cases where a team ran more than one car). This has lead to some weird decisions that shouldn't need to be made in the first pace. For example, for 1979, Brabham-Alfa Romeo came 8th, after McLaren, so you have the Brabham cars after McLaren in the template, but Brabham-Ford scored no points, so the BT49 which was only run with the Ford engine should surely then be placed somewhere near the end, but appears with the other two Brabhams. And using last years results would be no better since, again, the championship isn't awarded to a model of car, so how would you handle cases of multiple/changed chassis-engine combinations, or new entrants? Alphabetical order is the only sensible way to go even before considering the obvious benefits to the user. A7V2 (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

You're both right, let's go with the alphabetical order. RafaelS1979 (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Alphabetical it is. SSSB (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Y Done. SSSB (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Table of entrants

A discussion is ongoing at Talk:2019 Australian Grand Prix concerning the use of a table of entrants in Grand Prix articles, interested editors are welcome to join the discussion. SSSB (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Aston Martin and David Brown Corporation

One question, Aston Martin in 1959 and 1960, participated as an official team, or did David Brown Corporation as a private team? --Adriel 00 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I ask about the links. --Adriel 00 (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It was works team. David Brown owned the Aston Martin brand and thats why the team was entered under the David Brown Corporation banner. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Images of all 2019 drivers

Adriel 00 :) --Adriel 00 (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

McLaren Grand Prix results

I recently put together a table of McLaren's full IndyCar results, and while it's not necessarily too large for the body of the McLaren article, I think it's probably better suited for a page dedicated to McLaren's racing results. Would anyone be opposed to renaming McLaren Grand Prix results to something like "McLaren Racing results," so that it could cover all of the team's results from any series? Wicka wicka (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to leave things as they are, i.e. with McLaren's IndyCar results contained within the McLaren article, and McLaren Grand Prix results containing just the F1 results. As you say, the Indycar results table is not especially large, and the existing convention seems to be for IndyCar results to be recorded in the team/constructor articles rather than split out into separate articles. Having said that, if there is consensus for McLaren's IndyCar results to be relocated and McLaren Grand Prix results to be renamed, I'd suggest renaming it to "McLaren racing results" (i.e. 'racing' rather than 'Racing'), as the team has not always been called "McLaren Racing" and the article also contains results of McLaren cars raced by other teams. DH85868993 (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it makes most sense to put all of Mclaren's results across all categories in one place, although it should be called Mclaren's racing results as DH85868993 suggests. SSSB (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I was also hoping to include McLaren's non-works IndyCar results and Can-Am results eventually, which would make the tables even larger, so perhaps to DH85868993's point that's better justification for splitting them off into a separate page. I agree with you guys on the name, that makes more sense. McLaren's Le Mans entries were never actually operated by McLaren Racing, for instance. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I wonder whether there is actually a need for IndyCar results in the McLaren articles. There is no teams championship in any of IndyCar’s incarnations. No results were directly awarded to McLaren. The 2017 Indy500 effort wasn’t even McLaren operates. It was an Andretti Autosport-operated, Dallara-constructed car. McLaren was merely a sponsor.T v x1 20:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no possible justification for this stance, and your statement that "no results were directly awarded to McLaren" and "McLaren was merely a sponsor" are objectively false. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

How are they objectively false? There are no and nor have there been team championships in IndyCar. Care to explain how results were directly awarded to the McLaren team. And care to explain what McLaren did for the 2017 Indy500 entry besides sponsoring.T v x1 23:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to raise these questions at the relevant IndyCar WikiProject, they are unrelated to this discussion. Wicka wicka (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Team licence nationality sourcing

Apparently (per Mclarenfan17) we still don't know what flag to use against Alfa Romeo Racing for 2019. Does anyone know what the primary source is for this information or at what point is it likely to be available? We do seem to agree that the Racing Point F1 Team will be UK-licensed, so what was the RS for that? Also (unusually for WP:F1) we don't seem to insist on an RS for the nationality chosen this year by any of the other teams - perhaps we should. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is there and entry list in that article? We have never done anything like that before. The FIA hasn't even published the entry list for that races, so it is pure speculation.T v x1 12:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Back to the topic of this discussion, do you know where the team licence nationalities are generally sourced to - is it the entry list for each individual GP then? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Mostly yes. That and other media published during GP weekends. The team's nationalities are generally displayed prominently during the TV coverage of the events. And of course the winning constructor has its flag raised and its national played during the podium ceremonies. Also, when there is new/changing constructor they generally publish some statement regarding their license on their own media channels. That's how we found last year that Racing Point Force India used a British license.T v x1 15:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It all sounds very informal, and as we've seen, the cause of much fly-by edit turmoil. Presumably the FIA must record the nationality somewhere to be able to choose the correct flags, I wonder why they don't include it with their entry lists. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I always wondered about that as well. It's easy to convey.T v x1 18:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto, @Tvx1 — maybe because it's not terribly important. The television graphics are produced by FOM/Liberty Media (I'm not sure how it works now that Liberty has taken over), not by the FIA. I don't see what the flagicons add here, since there is no competition for nationalities. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have a reliable source for Racing Point's licence nationality either, but it has just been asserted that it isn't Canadian here, and implied (by what the text was restored to) that is British. I wonder if Wicka wicka could comment here on how they know that? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

They switched to a UK license after they bought out Force India last year, F1.com's teams list uses a UK flag, and when a Reddit user emailed them their PR folks said they will be using UK license. But to be honest I just switched it back to the UK flag because I thought that's what it was before. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Since the FIA have not issued 2019 Entry list with explicit statement about team´s nationality (and there is no hope they will do), this is our only source available: ^[1] . I think it is sufficient. Lucullus19 (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

That does not appear to come close to satisfying WP:RS. Besides, an entry list showing the flags will inevitably be published—the graphics showing WCC positions at the end of the Australian Grand Prix. It might be later than we would like, but there is no deadline for getting stuff done. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

References

^ https://baalis.com/switzerland/formula-1-tests-on-new-cars-from-barcelona-circuit-catalunya/

Moving classification tables in race reports

This is something I originally suggested in a discussion on Talk:2019 Australian Grand Prix about entry tables but I got no reply so I am bringing it here instead.

Currently an article about a race looks something like this:

1 Race report

1.1 Background

1.2 Qualifying

1.3 Race

2 Classification

2.1 Qualifying

2.2 Race

2.3 Championship standings after the race

(see 2018 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix for how this looks in an article)

However I propose that we change it to this:

1 Background

2 Qualifying (including post race penalties that affect quali result)

2.1 Qualifying classification

3 Race (including post race penalties that affect race result)

3.1 Race classification

4 Championship standings after the race

(see 1954 Belgian Grand Prix for how this looks in an article)

Why do I think this is a good idea? It allows for the reading of race report articles to be read in a more linear way, improving its readability. If you read the qualifying report you should see the classification before moving to a report of the race and then looking at the classification for the race. Further the qualifying classification (or to be precise the starting grid) impacts the race result and therefore it affects the written report of the race itself, it therefore makes sense to put qualifying classification between the quali report and the race report. This is something which I think will greatly improve the readability of our race reports heading into the future. SSSB (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I like the idea of inserting the tables into the report rather than keeping them separate. It's something that I'm trying to do with WRC articles (mostly because multiple series run concurrently), but with mixed results (we're not getting full coverage down here in 2019). Still, the idea is sound. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If no-one is opposed we can start doing this with the 2019 Australian Grand Prix. SSSB (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Move Graham Hill plane crash

I propose the transfer of "Graham Hill plane crash" to "Embassy Hill plane crash", and that, although Graham is the most important dead man, all the passengers were from Embassy Hill: a mechanic, a manager, a designer, a driver and Hill himself. With the title that I propose would not be excluded to the first four that I named. --Adriel 00 (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Also because the accident resulted in the disappearance of the team. --Adriel 00 (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adriel 00: Have you seen the discussions at the article talk page? (For background etc.) F1 is not the only project involved here and ones such as 'aviation' have some naming conventions which should also be borne in mind. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I've already read it, and never mention anything about the name with the team. As I said, although Graham is better known than the others, the accident occurred returning from a team test, the five passengers killed were from the team, and the accident simply caused the team's demise.

I'm not saying that the change is made from here, but you can talk to people from the aviation project. --Adriel 00 (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Lance Stroll

Over the past few days, two users have been edit-warring to repeatedly remove Lance Stroll's Belgian nationality from his article's lead. I have raised this the article's talk page. Any additional input is welcome.T v x1 19:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Fastest lap (and pole position) indicator in results matrices

With F1 now awarding a point to a driver setting the fastest lap during a race and these now having an impact, I think we should review they way these (and pole-positions) are indicated in our results matrices in season, teams, drivers and cars article. Currently we simply use a font variation (bold for pole positions, italics for fastest lap). With the increased value of the fastest lap I feel this is no longer sufficient. Already it is at times challenging to notice these subtle font differences in the large season and teams' result matrices. As the importance of them was rather limited in those tables that wasn't a real problem, but that has changed now. Moreover our reliance on a font variation as sole means to convey information is a massive accessibility issue. And with the sudden importance of the fastest laps, we cannot ignore that any longer. The simply fact is that people using assistive technologies are simply not told at all whose set the fastest lap (nor who got pole position), simply because screen readers can't detect font changes. Therefore I feel that we cannot keep using the current system. The big question is though, what system can we use instead? Unfortunately, I have not been able to think of a possible solution yet.T v x1 02:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A couple of options:

We continue using italicised font, but only consider fastest laps when points are awarded (after all, it directly affects the results when the old system did not).
We introduce an additional indicator, like an asterisk. It lets us always recognise the fastest lap, points or no, but might clutter the table (especially in the case of pole, fastest lap and bonus points).
We do what WRC articles do and use a 1 (in superscript) to indicate who gets the bonus point.

I get the point about assisstive technologies (although I think their prevalence is overstated), but if we can't do anything about it, we will just have to leave it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the original solution, give the requirement for fastest lap in the points allocation table and then use italics in the results matrix. It's important to remember that the reuslts matrix shows the results, not the points alocation, therefore it does not make sense to me to include who got the point for fastest lap in the results matrix, only who got the fastest lap, this would also be consistent to how it was done before (see 1950 Formula One season for an example), admitidly that came in simpler times (with regards to fastest lap point) but it would only require a few extra words to what we have got there. SSSB (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that there a number of people who currently can’t find out who set fastest lap (or pole position) at all. And they have no clue they aren’t. Screen readers don’t pick up font changes.T v x1 12:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"The problem is that there a number of people who currently can’t find out who set fastest lap (or pole position) at all. And they have no clue they aren’t. Screen readers don’t pick up font changes."

Wouldn't they find that information out from the summary table at the start of the section? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Well if I have to pick one I would suggest option 3, this way you can tell who gets the fastest and weather they get a point for it, rather than having to put 2 and 2 together as to why some races don't have fastest lap (option 1). option 3 is better than option 2 because 3 comes with an expalantion and the superscript ¹ stands out more than the *. SSSB (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The italics is almost impossible to see. I think we can use, for example, little "FL" or something like that like we do with "1"-"5" in rally. Alex (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we need an FL, a 1 in superscript will do, espically considering we can link to a sentence expalining the fastest lap and the fact that the reward only applies to the top 10. SSSB (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that numbers in table indicate a position, not points, so what would that "1" mean? In rally superscript 1 means 1st position in power stage. But here it wouldnt really mean anything. Alex (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The ¹ would link to a statement (see 2019 Australian Grand Prix#Race classification for example), from here the reader could see what the 1 refers to. SSSB (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly should we use: "1" or " * " or something else but something definitely has to be done cause italics is almost impossible too see. It was ok for previous seasons when fastest lap didnt give anything but now it should be clearly visible to the reader. Alex (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, I am opposed to an asterixs, they are small and in my opinion not much easier to than italics. SSSB (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The only different style I'm aware that is currently in use across the Wikipedia is the the Dutch way. They use superscript indicators. I find that style easier to read actually. And it's more in line with accessibility guidelines. I have realized though that one can still set a fastest lap without getting a bonus point. So I was thinking to maybe use two superscript indicators. Something like "F" for fastest lap and "F1" for fastest lap+bonus point.T v x1 18:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"the Dutch way" as you call it looks quite good, I don't think two indicators are necessary for fastest lap, a note like "Fastest lap:If the driver who gets the fastest lap also finishes in the top ten then a bonus point is awarded" should be sufficent. SSSB (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Navbox for specific Grand Prix

I made {{Malaysian Grand Prix}} in 2015 but abandoned it without adding to any articles. It has now been nominated for speedy deletion. I'm not in the WikiProject. Are you interested in such navboxes? There are already navboxes like {{F1GP 2010–19}} but they only cover a decade, don't list the curcuits or main grand prix article, and are not organized to easily find the Grands Prix of one country. Other cases like Category:British Grand Prix could connect a lot of articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:, I don't speak for the whole wikiproject but I don't think it is necessary, we have Category:Malaysian Grand Prix and Malaysian Grand Prix to cover that. SSSB (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It was deleted faster than expected. There is a copy below. Many other races would have more blue links. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I'm happy for us to go ahead although I think it was tried before, just bear in mind there is one for the Monaco Grand Prix, which is only used in two of Monaco grand Prix article (see here, (although I don't know why). SSSB (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I forgot making {{Monaco Grand Prix}} at the same time without adding it to any articles. Unikalinho found it somehow and added it to two years.[5][6] I see you updated it in December. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Flagicons in car infoboxes

The discussion Admanny actually wanted to discuss here was about the use of flagicons in car infoboxes, as we veered way off topic and this has never been discussed (apart from Admanny clarify to DH85868993) I thought I would start it under a heading, personally I support the earlier consensus made at Talk:McLaren MCL34, per WP:MOSFLAG and WP:FLAGCRUFT

"Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many."

And

"Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text."

I see no reason why the original consensus ( the discussion for which was advertised here) should be overturned. SSSB (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know really. They do convey information in addition to the text (their nationalities) and I really don't find the little amount of flags in such a comprehensive infobox prominent or distracting.T v x1 22:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. It is not a major distraction to look at; Formula One in the past has frequently shown drivers’ nationality (although they are doing it a bit less now) and I see little reason to change. Admanny (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Admanny:, your comment is unclear, "Agree with this" sounds like you agree with my original comment (flagicons should stay out), but the rest of your comment suggests the opposite. SSSB (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

They are identing to my comment, so it’s obvious that their comment relates to mine.T v x1 11:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1:, that doesn't clear it up considering you said "I don't know" SSSB (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe wikipedia's policy is indicating that the splash of colour provided by flags makes them stand out (and stand out too much) against the general lack of colour in infoboxes. --Falcadore (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

(Renamed) Use of flagicons

I realize from looking at the all talk discussions at Talk:2019 Australian Grand Prix that this will be a year-long issue, race-by-race.

The edits in question:

Removing current driver flags from all of 2019's cars infobox
Adding an entry list
Removing driver flags from Qualifying classification
Removing driver flags from Race classification

It appears from the discussion at Talk:2019 Australian Grand Prix that more people are in favor of keeping the flags, so that sorts out the last two points. Entry list is still debated, and removing driver flags from the cars' pages is not discussed yet.

To maintain consistency with the "consensus" that we keep driver flags in Qualifying and Race classification tables, should we reinstate the driver flags in the 2019 cars' pages? Admanny (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The sample car results tables indicate that car results tables should not have driver flags. DH85868993 (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

My bad. I meant the current drivers in the infobox. Admanny (talk) 06:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I probably should have realised that's what you meant. Thanks for clarifying. DH85868993 (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The entry lists are pointless. Unlike some categories F1 generally enter the same drivers all year, so entry list are just duplication of data on the season article. --Falcadore (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Except when they don't. We consider having your name on an entry list enough to have participated in a Grand Prix, so driver changes (such as Paul di Resta filling in for Felipe Massa) and FP1 entries would all be included.

More to the point, Formula 1 articles have not been written as proper articles for years. Most of the time, they're just results tables and practically treates as news articles. It was not so long ago that championship articles were really just lists of dot points outlining changes year on year, a summary of Autosport articles for people who had uses up their 15 free views for the month.

Now, @Admanny, you can either bitch about my making changes to the articles or you can work to improve them. A dozen people have insisted that the flags have to stay despite WP:MOSFLAG, but no-one seems to be able to explain why they're so important beyond "we've always done it that way", which is a BS argument because it prevents changes from happening. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

If you had just looked up, you would see that someone has alerted the WikiProject to the discussion and in a much more neutral way. This discussion amounts to canvassing. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Or you could use sentences in the article to describe those changes, which is wikipedia's prefered method as well. If you can describe something simply and quickly with a sentence or two, the table becomes superfluous. Tables should not be used in place of text.

How do I know that sentences are better for communicating simple information? You aren't using a table in defence or your argument. --Falcadore (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't see how Admanny would be canvassing here? They didn't notify/invite anyone anywhere. You really ought to read that policy. And you really ought to finally read the other contributors comments as well, the other editors supporting to keep the flags have clearly explained how they aid them in reading the tables. You're "we've always done it that way" remark is completely off.T v x1 12:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1:, it could be considered as canvassing as a biased notification of a discussion, however I think that Admanny was starting a new discussion, not advertising another one. SSSB (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: My point is to sort out flags in the cars’ infoboxes but you fellas veered way off course... I by no means want to canvass opinions on the other issues.Admanny (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Admanny:, ill put in a level 2 heading and we can discus it there. SSSB (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Falcadore: but you just hit the nail on the head. If a reader wants to see who is entered for a grand prix they need to visit the entry list on the season article, not only is this inconvenient for the reader but an article should cover all information relevant to any grand prix which includes the entry list. SSSB (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Not not really. The competitors are listed in the Grand Prix articles regardless of there being an entry list. All that's needed to know all is a wee bit of scrolling.T v x1 12:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1: several things

Firstly, not all the entrents are listed, any driver is only listed if they participate in quali, otherwise you might get a brief mention buried in a paragraph of text or nothing at all.

Secondly, "wee bit" isn't always necessarly true, some of our race reports wind up being quite long, leading to a lot of scrolling and do you really want readers to open an article, scroll down to see some of the entrants and then scroll up to read the race report.

Thirdly, the list of competitors you refer to (which I assume to be classification tables) doesn't tell you everything, most importantly the chassis, the entry table is the only thing that tells you this, considering the articles for the chassis link to the grand prix articles and show how that specific chassis performed it only makes sense that the article should link to the cars too.

But most importantly you seem to be quite inconsistent here, you insist on having flagicons included several times per driver when you can find nationality with a "wee bit" of scrolling or you want multiple flagicons as a "navigational aid" and yet you are against using a table of entrants to stop people scrolling up and down or as a navigational aid to see who is entered. SSSB (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Having the flags does more than finding out the nationality. The many users objecting their removal how properly explained how they are still independently valuable within each separate table. Only having them in the entry list does not cover everything they are used for. As for the entry lists, I really don't see scrolling as unacceptable. No Grand Prix article tends to get really extremely long. It's just a little effort. And are the chassis names really that vital. We barely mention them in the reports anyway. Teams and drivers is what our reports revolve around. A really think this is a case of being over concerned here.T v x1 14:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1:, it may be a little effort for you but not everyone will have the advantage of a scroll bar or a relatively wide screen, a mobile user will have to do a lot of scrolling even if the article is relatively short because there is rarely space for more than a few words per line. SSSB (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, clear overconcern. If there was really serious problem with people having trouble to find out who entered, we would have had some serious complaints by now and it would certainly have come up during the FA candidacies some of these articles went through.T v x1 22:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I support the entry list being in the race article because I think each of these articles should be reasonably comprehensive (and perhaps be a candidate for FA ultimately) and not rely on link-clicking to find crucial information, such as who has been entered for the race. And, as it should come first, the entry list is an ideal place to cover who, and which teams, are racing under which flag, as it is interesting race background information. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

And that's where the need for an entry list is once again contradicted. We have many Grand Prix articles with GA or FA status without an entry list and without one even being requested during the reviews. Yet more evidence that you're ~~wetting~~ worrying about a problem that just does not exist. No-one ever complained about the absence of an entry list, no article has ever failed to reach or project's top class just because of the absence of an entry list. There is no evidence whatsoever that the addition of this huge unwieldy table massively improves the quality of such an article in any way.T v x1 12:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1:, just because articles can reach good or featured articles status does not mean that they cannot be improved, just because no one complains does not mean that it shouldn't be added should be decide that it would beneficial. SSSB (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem is though there appears to be little evidence that this is beneficial, let alone required. All it has done so far is create conflict and edit-warring.T v x1 14:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Tvx1, no contradiction - comprehensive cover doesn't mean as little as you can get away with, it means as comprehensive as you can make it. Who takes part is a fundamental element of the race, and a table is a concise and ordered way of presenting it. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Yet prose is more efficient because it can convey information and provide background to that information. Making an article more comprehensive is not synonymous with plastering another large table. The best way to make an article more comprehensive is to write well written, well supported prose.T v x1 22:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Tvx1, I agree that quality prose is important too, and that key background information should be brought out that way. But more efficient than a table for presenting the entry list? Can you give us an example of prose describing the entry list, without the use of a table, but with all the detail in the table, and as readily parsable as the table. If you can, I'd go with that. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

2015 Australian Grand Prix is such an example. Prose perfectly covers the special situation with the entries and eventual participations that happened back then. The many other articles which received FA status are good examples too. If there still is something you think that is missing, you can always edit them and expand the prose even more.T v x1 11:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Tvx1, that doesn't tell me who the entrants are, and if I was reviewing it for GA or FA I would expect an entrants section to be present, because without one it is clearly an incomplete article. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

No one is claiming we shouldn't have an entrants section at all. We simply don't that section needs that large table. And the many people wo did GA and FA reviews on such articles didn't see it as unfulfilled requirement. It's thus clearly not something to block an article getting GA or FA for.T v x1 09:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding entry lists to modern GP article is just duplication of data hosted multiple times elsewhere. The function of entry lists in articles mainly asists motor races with co-drivers and where entry fluctuates from one race to the next. Formula One does neither. It does not improve the article, it lengthens it unneccesarily. Any changes from the previous race's entry can be covered easily and quickly in a couple of sentences that anyone can write, much less read and comprehend.

Don't overthink it. Don't smother articles in stats and tables. --Falcadore (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Falcadore: no, each race article should be treated as independent to both other race articles and the article which covers the season, a casual reader may not be aware that driver lineups don't change constantly nor the original line up for that season, the fact the entry list is included in the season article does not mean that it should be excluded in race articles for that season. The only way we can comprehensivly cover everyone entered for a specific grand prix is with the inclusion of an entry table, otherwise we are relying on the reader attempting to deduce a races entries. SSSB (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with SSSB on this. I might only be interested in my home GP, and shouldn't have to dig out other articles to try and find out who is or was entered for it. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's pretty selfish then. We shouldn't only cover our own personal needs/desires. I'm pretty certain that there are many readers which are not only interested in their home race. And as explained a couple of times before, no one has to dig out other articles at all. So I really don't understand why this false argument keeps being repeated. Falcadore, has made all the arguments. This table is not improvement, nor is their evidence it is, and certainly there is no evidence that for the past years and years our readers have completely failed to understand these articles that didn't have one. This all boils down to being over concerned.T v x1 11:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1:, its not selfish at all, it is understading that readers don't necessarly read every race report in a season and therefore are unaware of who was in the previous race, it is understanding that every reader has different needs/desires. Statements such as "There were no driver replacements or additional practice drivers" therefore don't mean anything to them and statements such as "Fernando Alonso was replaced by Jenson Button" don't inform the reader of the other ~19 entries. And they do need to dig up information, whether it be from the race classification or from the season reports becuase it is not stated who takes part in any given grand prix event. Finally there is evidence that this table is an improvement but you are chossing to ignore it becuase you believe that no complaints means the article is perfect which it certainly isn't, mahy of our race reports don't include quali classification, but no one has complained abouut it, does that mean they shouldn't be added, of course not. If anyone is being selfish here it is you insiting that just because you know that entries change from race to race you think everyone else knows and insiting that everyone should either go to the season report to see entries or scroll down to classification tables because you don't consider it too much effort. SSSB (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Then improve the prose where it is defective. Plastering in an unwieldy table no one has ever requested. All the complaints regarding an entry list have arisen ever since one was included, not when one was absent.T v x1 12:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

There were no complaits with regard to the entry tabler, they were in regard to flagicons, there are only a few editors opposed to the entry table.

Taking it upon yourself to remove the entries table when their is still an ongiong discussion is unacceptable and you have been editing for long enough to know that. With that edit you also attempted to put it into prose, (as seen here), this clearly proves that the information would be presented in a much clearer way in a table, it looks quite as bad to the eye as if you had attempted to put the classification tables in prose, table is clearly the best form. SSSB (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

There quite clearly are complaints with regards to the entry list. Why do you think we’re having this discussion? An my edit is called being bold. It’s a good faith action that shows we can easily achieve with a few lines of prose what that unwieldy table attempts to do. I’m getting really annoyed that we have been “fighting” over these flags and entry lists for days and are assuming bad intentions of one another instead of focussing our efforts on the more important things like further improving the report prose and adding key facts to the lead like, say, that Bottas won the race.T v x1 14:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

There are 4 editors who are complaining about the entry table including you against 3 who want it. WP:BOLD does not cover your edit, making an edit to prove attempt to prove your point isn't being bold as this is still under discussion and you can call the table "unwieldy" if you want but I think it looks a hell of a lot more elegant and a lot clearer than your attempt at prose and you are more than welcome to make edits to the article so long as you don't remove the entries table beofre we conclude this discussion. SSSB (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Why should they be completely independent? Who says that? Who wants that?? Our coverage should be in balance with the real world events we deal with. And the simple fact is that these real life events are not fully standalone, independent. They are rounds of a World Championship. And the competitors primarily enter the championship. Our coverage should be in balance with that. Again, again and again: over-concerned! There is no evidence whatsoever that our readers don‘t understand these articles without an entry list.T v x1 16:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Tvx1, no, it's not selfish to support all interest levels amongst readers, we cannot assume all readers are ardent fans of the sport. In fact it is the expressed purpose of Wikipedia - WP:AUDIENCE has some useful advice, including: It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully.. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

You didn't mention "all" interest levels. You only used "I" and what you yourself want. And it would help if you would mention the entire WP:AUDIENCE section instead of misrepresenting one sentence through ripping it out of context. It states :". An article entitled "Use of chromatic scales in early Baroque music" is likely to be read by musicians, and technical details and terms are appropriate, linking to articles explaining the technical terms. On the other hand, an article entitled "Baroque music" is likely to be read by laypersons who want a brief and plainly written overview, with links to available detailed information." Translate tour project Formula One is something that would mostly attract a general audience. A very specific article like 2019 Australian Grand Prix is much more likely to be read with people with considerable knowledge about the subject. The people arriving on such an article with no clue is going to be an extreme minority. An most importantly Wp:AUDIENCE deals with jargon, not with participants in an event that's part of a much larger championship.T v x1 09:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

In the context it was clearly the informal generic "I", which more formally might be written as "one might only be interested in one's home GP". Your second point is nonsense. Firstly the quote was not taken out of context - here is the full first paragraph from WP:AUDIENCE: Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully. Your "context" was from the second paragraph about the use of jargon! The context here is exactly that of the sentence I quoted. If one were only interested in one's home GP, or one was only interested in a specific race for a specific reason, then it definitely is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto:, @Tvx1: why are you still continuing this, we have a compromise which everyone agrees with, why are you continuing the discussion, its pointless. SSSB (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: IMO, the misunderstanding over English usage needed clarifying and being accused, about a quote from a Wikipedia guideline, of ripping it out of context needed unambiguous rebuttal. I've leave it there though. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A possible compromise

I think I have come up with a possible comprise. (which I will also be posting on the other discussion on this page)

I am willing to accept a entries section that only includes replacements and FP drivers in prose form (as it was) but on a 2 conditions which I don't think are too much to ask

1)The FP drivers and replacement drivers will be listed under a explicit heading (level 2 or 3) with a further information tag linking to the season entries table i.e. like this

===Entries===

{{further information|2019 Formula One World Championship#Entries}}

2)The entries heading is present even if there are no changes (with a comment, "There were no changes in the team or driver line up from the last race" so that readers will be able to see the full entry list should they choose.

Per WP:CYCLE I will be implemeting this so you can see it (only just found the policy) SSSB (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The first condition is a no-brainer for me. That’s how we always have dealt with those drivers in the more comprehensive Grand Prix articles. The second condition is something I couldn’t possibly oppose either. So all in all I support this compromise proposal.T v x1 18:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: that does look like a promising idea. And at least we get a proper entries section. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Carlos Sainz (Jr)?

Obviously there is an article about Carlos Sainz and Carlos Sainz Jr. I noticed that our race reports have [[Carlos Sainz Jr]] instead of [[Carlos Sainz Jr|Carlos Sainz]]. Why is this, as far as I am aware the Jr isn't part of this name (as seen in the lead of his article) but rather an identifier only included in the article title due to his father of the same name (Carlos Sainz). So why do we include the Jr. when we put him into race reports where there is no mention of his father and therefore no need to distinguish between the 2. SSSB (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess we should take the lead for our displayed text from the RSs. I see formulaone.com use just "Carlos Sainz" in their latest race results as do fia.com. So I'd go with [[Carlos Sainz Jr.|Carlos Sainz]] (with the full-stop to avoid a redirect). -- DeFacto (talk). 18:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

"So why do we include the Jr. when we put him into race reports where there is no mention of his father and therefore no need to distinguish between the 2."

Because Sainz Sr. is a two-time World Rally Champion and two-time Dakar Rally winner. It is reasonable to conclude that someone with a knowledge of motorsports could confuse the two, even if they raced in different disciplines. Clicking "Carlos Sainz" and winding up on Jr.'s article instead of Sr.'s would be an easter egg.

Also, it's scary just how much Jr. looks like his father. Seriously. It's like it's 1992 all over again. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Constructors' Championships by driver table

There's a discussion in progress at Talk:List_of_Formula_One_World_Constructors'_Champions#By_driver_table regarding the merits of the "By driver" table. Interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Sauber -> Alfa Romeo Racing

Sauber will be known as Alfa Romeo next year, at this time an edit was made to Alfa Romeo in Formula One stating that they will be competing in F1 instead of Sauber but on 2019 season page and Sauber it states that sauber will still be competing but under a new name (similar to Racing Point Force India -> Racing Point transition). How do we want to tackle this. Personally I think we should do what we are doing with Racing Point and leave it untill we get a stance from the FIA as to weather Alfa Romeo Racing is part of Sauber or Alfa. SSSB (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

However looking at the logo (https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.sauber-become-alfa-romeo-racing-for-2019-f1-season.qitME3QrTxzCaiUXEBDNx.html), it says since 1910, this is when Alfa Romeo was founded, Sauber wasn't founded untill the 1990's, this suggests Alfa Romeo Racing should be included in Alfa Romeo in Formula One. SSSB (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The question is whether it's a full constructor change or just Sauber adopting a new identity. Autosport suggests the former as they say the Sauber name will not appear on the grid. 1.129.105.42 (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, as I indicated above the logo suggests a new constructor but the official F1 website says that Alfa Romeo Racing "The outfit will remain Sauber in all but name" (https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.what-dropping-sauber-name-means-for-alfa-romeo-racing.5mXcTEz3dv63T9SLuAInDl.html), therefore suggesting its just a new identity, and when Sauber became BMW Sauber WP:F1 contrbuted those results to Sauber. SSSB (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Either way I suggest we do the same as we are doing with Racing Point, waiting untill we have an official stance, at the moment its 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. SSSB (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The BMW Sauber situation was different though since the the Sauber name was retained in the constructor name though. I will also note that we contribute those results to BMW in Formula One. We didn't actually contribute them to Sauber back then, that happened later but I'm still not sure why.T v x1 17:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally I do not think it's right not to link to Alfa Romeo in Formula One, having an "Alfa Romeo" between the teams. --Adriel 00 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

If the team is now competing under the Alfa Romeo name then it should be directed to the Alfa Romeo article. We can't just move the whole Sauber article, that would be like moving the Minardi article to Toro Rosso which wouldn't be right. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

But Minardi was sold, which is why the name changed. The same doesn't apply here. Sauber hasn't been bought by Alfa Romeo. I'm not saying we should move the article (I'm sitting on the fence at the moment), but that logic doesn't apply here. SSSB (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB, "but that logic doesn't apply here" It's the same in principal as we didn't move the Minardi article after the name change despite it being the exact same team. It will be competing under the Alfa Romeo name while still being operated by Sauber Motorsport similar to when Manor Motorsport operated Virgin Racing/Marussia F1. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I think a more relevant example is Lotus/Caterham. Same owner, same operator, yet for the FIA different constructors with separate records and as a result separate articles on Wikipedia.T v x1 21:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we should wait to see how the reliable sources handle this. We don't want to build a confusing mess like has happened before when car brands have have sponsored constructors to use their names. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. SSSB (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Note - there is a move request at Talk:Sauber

Tables should not be used as a substitute for prose. They are a way of representing information in a simple way. The article should have a brief introductory paragraph outlining who is competing (just the teams), then the table, then details of changes. As it is, the articles just read like lists (in prose form) of changes. 1.129.105.135 (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The offocial 2019 entry list says the company name of Alfa Romeo Racing is Sauber and the chassis will also be named Sauber. Shouldn't Alfa Romeo Racing's results therefore be put in the article for Sauber given its the same company? Doesn't this also imply that 'Alfa Romeo Racing' is registered in Switzerland. SSSB (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: no, it says the chassis name is "Alfa Romeo Racing" too, but none of that matters as far as the flag is concerned, what we need to know for that is whether they will continue to use a Swiss licence. Looking at the graphic on the Alfa entry on the F1 site though, they, at least, seem to think it is going to remain Swiss. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, however the company name being Sauber suggests their results should be in the sauber article not the Alfa Romeo one. SSSB (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Not it doesn't. Records are credited to constructors, not companies. This is not different to Manor Motorsport operating three constructors (Virgin, Marussia and MRT) which each have separate records and separate Wikipedia articles.T v x1 21:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

There is another option here: we treat Alfa Romeo Racing as a separate constructor to Alfa Romeo. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but the Alfa Romeo of the 1980s was a fully-fledged works outfit. The new Alfa Romeo team is simply using the name under licence from Alfa Romeo's parent company. The team is neither owned nor funded by Alfa Romeo the way the 1980s team was. 1.144.104.49 (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Given Tvx1's lastest comment we should wait and see how the FIA view this and see to whom they credit the results. SSSB (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

You know, I have been thinking the same thing. So far, there is little evidence that this team is a proper return of the Alfa Romeo works team. I can see clear differences between this and say Mercedes' return in 2010 and Honda's return in 2008. This Alfa Romeo Racing, while name after a car manufacturer, does not seem to be operated by said car manufacturer. It reminds me more of Spyker Cars and Spyker F1 and Marussia Motors and Marussia F1, which weren't Spyker Cars in Formula one and Marussia Motors in Formula One because they weren't F1 works team operated by a car manufacturer but separate companies named after one another through a common shareholder.T v x1 17:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I also considered it especially given its only called Alfa Romeo Racing due to a sponsorship deal. But we should still probably wait till we get some form of FIA confirmation regarding this. SSSB (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I lean towards having a standalone article at Alfa Romeo Racing until we know for sure whether the FIA will consider the team as a continuation of Sauber or Alfa Romeo, or neither. At the moment, the infobox at Alfa Romeo in Formula One presupposes that "Alfa Romeo Racing" will be considered as a continuation of Alfa Romeo (1950-1985), when we don't know that to be the case. DH85868993 (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1, @SSSB, @DH85868993 — that's definitely the most appropriate way forward. This team is more than Sauber in Alfa Romeo war paint, but I don't think we can really make the case that it's a full manufacturer team like Ferrari and Mercedes. If some source pops up in the coming weeks or months that reveals the team is a manufacturer team after all, then we can adjust things as needed. We can only ever go by what the sources say, so we can be right now and right in the future even if the article has to completely change. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

We need to make a decision one way or another, because currently Alfa Romeo in Formula One is left in rather confusing state, the infobox being major part to that. It does indeed assume a OR continuation, but what's even worse is that it now all but ignores the previous Alfa Romeo history. A considerable parameter only lust information on the "current" Alfa Romeo". I think that's not a correct situation. Per the guidelines, an infobox should surmise the key facts of the entire article and not just on the section dealing with the most recent information. Thus parameters like "base" in an article on a constructor should list all of them they used and not just the "current" one. A similar problem exists with the infobox in Grands Prix articles.T v x1 14:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I favour adding a section to the Sauber article, whichever way the FIA choose to allocate the points. This is the same team, managed by exactly the same company (Sauber Motorsport AG), they have designed and manufactured the 2019 car as an evolution of last year's car, in their same factory in Hinwil. The only difference is that this year they will badge their car as Alfa, whereas last year's car was badged Sauber. Whatever the FIA decide to do with the points, we can mirror in the new section. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Now that the first race of the season has been run, we can start to see how external sources are treating Alfa Romeo Racing:

formula1.com seems to treat them as a continuation of Sauber ("First Team Entry: 1993", "Highest Race Finish: 1 (x1)")
StatsF1 seems to treat them as a continuation of Alfa Romeo ("First Grand Prix: 1950")
FORIX (subscription site) seems to treat them as a continuation of Alfa Romeo (they list "(Total Constructors) Points" as 54, which you only get if you include the 4 points from the Australian GP)
I haven't yet seen any evidence of how the FIA is treating them (noting that formula1.com is not the FIA's website).

Does anyone have evidence from any other sources? DH85868993 (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The BBC seem to consider them a continuation of Alfa Romeo, (the 2 championships refer to the drivers from 50 and 51). SSSB (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Laffite and Regazzoni at the 1976 British Grand Prix revisited

Back in 2013, we had a discussion about whether Jacques Laffite and Clay Regazzoni's results at the 1976 British Grand Prix should be listed as "Ret" or "DSQ" (see the discussion for details of what occurred during the race/why the results are disputed). The consensus at that time was that the results should be listed as "Ret", so 1976 British Grand Prix and all related articles (Jacques Laffite, Clay Regazzoni, Equipe Ligier, Ferrari Grand Prix results, Ligier JS5, Ferrari 312T and 1976 Formula One season) were updated accordingly. Since then, all the articles have been changed to show the results as "DSQ" (Jahn1234567890 updated 1976 British Grand Prix in November 2014, I presume the other articles were updated by the same editor at the same time, but I haven't actually checked this). Rather than just reverting all the articles back to the 2013 consensus, I thought I would start a new discussion to gauge the project's current view. Here's what various sources currently say:

Source	Result
formula1.com (current version)	NC/DNF
formula1.com (old version)	Ret
StatsF1	dsq
Chicane F1	ret
FORIX (subscription site)	Disqualified
grandprix.com	r/dq

Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Well I disagree with your revert as being the right thing to do BEFORE a decision is made, since the only source listed for the results has them as "ret", not DSQ, and also the article itself is now not consistent with itself: "Laffite retired on lap 32 and Regazzoni on lap 37 due to suspension problems and low oil pressure respectively, relieving the stewards from having to rule on whether the two were to be disqualified for use of the replacement cars.", but that's not really important for now.

In any case, I definitely agree with the old concensus. I'll add that Doug Nye's book "The British Grand Prix" specifically says that Hunt was disqualified, and not Laffite and Regazzoni. I think the reason that a few sources list them as disqualified is that by the letter of the rules, they SHOULD have been disqualified, but that is not the same thing. This probably has happened many of times where someone broke the rules but didn't finish anyway, so weren't formally disqualified. Unless there is proof they were disqualified, why go against the worded reports? A7V2 (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I am also in agreement with the original consensus (listed as RET), although they would undoubtedly have been disqualified had they finished the fact that they didn't finish meant that the race stewards and the protesters obviously thought there was no reason to disqualfy them and therefore they weren't disqualified, the fact that they would have been had they finished is irreverent, they weren't disqualified and the respective articles should respect that. We follow offical results, not speculatve results based on what would have happened if they finished the race. The official results shows DNF/Ret (one and the same thing) and so should we. SSSB (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to know what contemporary sources reported on the matter. All the ones presented here are rather recent. Surely that FIA's court of appeal's decision should be documented somewhere?T v x1 23:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The contemporary report in Motor Sport magazine says "Regazzoni saw the oil pressure on his Ferrari engine sag dangerously and he stopped before the engine blew up and as Laffite had retired shortly before when the old Ligier suffered a cracked rear suspension bracket, like the new car had in practice, the decision of the Stewards to exclude them from the results for using Training cars, was rather pointless." The linked URL includes thumbnails of the actual pages from the hardcopy magazine with a "click to zoom" button, but they won't zoom for me, so I can't see how Motor Sport actually recorded the results in their results table. Is anyone else able to zoom the thumbnails? DH85868993 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I was able to zoom in on the thumbnails. Laffite and Regazzoni are included in the list of retirements but there is a note underneath the results: "NB. - J. Laffite (Ligier JS5/01) and G. Regazzoni (Ferrari 312T2/026) were excluded from the results as their cars were "Training" vehicles used for the second start." – Ky ta bu 02:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! DH85868993 (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The MotorSport article you linked to though is only the report of the race and thus only carries the original results classified by the on-site stewards, including Hunt as the race winner. The results were revised much later in the season and it's the full course of action by the Court of Appeal that we need to find out. I had already queried MotorSport archive to find out if they had covered the late-september FIA Court of Appeal decision, but I only found the November 1976 mentioning only Hunt's fate in their report of the 1976 Canadian Grand Prix.T v x1 11:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Douge Nye's book was published in 1977 so should be considered contemporary I think. I'll get the exact quote from the book when I get home later. A further comment though: if we do go with DSQ rather than ret then definitely the race report in the Wikipedia article needs to be changed, removing the sentence I quoted above, as it suggests that they weren't disqualified. Also, perhaps a stupid question, but is there any material difference between being "disqualified" and being "excluded" (it seems like more of a case of personal preference of the author of the Motorsport author but I'm not sure)? A7V2 (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that if we do go with DSQ rather than Ret then the text in 1976 British Grand Prix needs to be changed. I think that in this context "disqualified" and "excluded" are effectively synonymous and just a personal word choice on the author's part. DH85868993 (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, Nye's book is not as clear-cut as I thought: From the report "Laffite and Regazzoni had their 'illegal entries' fail under them which seemed to be saving the stewards some post-race deliberations,..." isn't really clear either way. In the results, both are listed as retirements, but the reason is "rear suspension pickup failure/disqualified" for Laffite and "engine/disqualified" for Regazzoni. I think then it doesn't make a whole lot of difference either way, so long as the article itself is self-consistent, and at least one source listed under results shows whichever version we go with.A7V2 (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that we use what is officially stated by Formula One (in this case, DNF) however with a note-caveat that explains why the result can be interpreted as a DSQ (e.g. Cars failed to finish, however the use of replacement cars is claimed as a disqualifiable offence by some sources.*insert source*). Holdenman05 (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I have been offline the last couple of days and am trying to catch up. Anyway, when I edited those pages some years ago I was unaware a consensus had already been reached. I interpreted it as such that both Laffite and Regazzoni were disqualified after the race even though they failed to finish the race due to a technical infringement. I think this is somewhat comparable to the Tyrrell case of 1984: e.g. Bellof retired from the 1984 Brazilian GP but when was disqualified later anyways. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have a copy of Mike Lang's Grand Prix!, and he list them as retirements in his results table, and adds "at least any arguments over Regazzoni and Laffite's participation had ended with their retirements!" in the text. —Gyaro –Maguus— 19:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

We need to make a decision. My main concern with my original edit was that the prose of the article suggested they weren't disqualified, and the only citation for the results says Ret not DSQ, so the article wasn't consistent with itself. To me it seems that the true answer is unclear, so whichever is chosen, I think the article needs to be changed to make it clear that there is disagreement amougst sources over whether or not they were disqualified. Also I would assume that putting both DSQ and Ret would cause problems for other tables and articles (since this would seem to me the "most correct" way to go, but I can see why it isn't ideal)? A7V2 (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we:

leave the results as "DSQ"
change the results table source to one which shows Laffite and Regazzoni as having been disqualified (perhaps StatsF1?)
remove the statement "relieving the stewards from having to rule on whether the two were to be disqualified for use of the replacement cars." (which is unsourced anyway)

on the basis that:

FORIX (usually a very reliable source) gives the result as "Disqualified", and
the contemporary report in Motor Sport lists them as disqualified and explicitly states that the Stewards decided to exclude them from the results ("...the decision of the Stewards to exclude them from the results for using Training cars, was rather pointless")

I have no objection to extra text/footnotes being added to explain that some sources show the result as "Ret" and some show it as "DSQ". Regarding the question about the outcome of the FIA Court of Appeal, my guess is that Laffite and Regazzoni's "results" were never protested by anyone, so the stewards' original decision (disqualification) stood. I also note that in similar cases where drivers started illegally but failed to finish (e.g Denny Hulme in the 1974 German Grand Prix and Hans Heyer in the 1977 German Grand Prix), we list the result as "DSQ".

However, having said all of that, I'm also not opposed to the idea of changing the results (in all the relevant articles) back to "Ret", per the 2013 consensus. As we have established, the true situation is unclear, so I don't really mind which result we go with, as long as all the articles say the same thing. DH85868993 (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Grand Prix entry lists

Starting with the 2019 Australian Grand Prix a Grand Prix entry list table has been added for the first time in one of our race articles. Since this is a clear change of established practice and since it affects more than just that article, since there appears to be an intention to do this for every race now, and since it has been a source of controversy combined with edit-warring on that one article I raise this topic here because I like to know what the F1 Wikiproject thinks with regards to including that table.T v x1 02:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Not the first, some races from the 50's also include them. SSSB (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

For articles from 50's including them is fine cause customer cars were allowed at that time so entry list was highly variable from race to race. But now it's almost always will be just same. Alex (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I will just copy what I have written in another place. Do we really need entry list table? Unlike rally, in F1 entry list will be almost always just copied from race to race without any changes, cause there are usually 1-2 driver change at max per season (last season even didnt have mid season driver changes at all). The reason for adding the table was that the article about specific car has a link to every race article, but race articles dont have links to car articles. But we can just add this template for that purpose in every 2019 race article instead of adding the whole table. So in my opinion this table should just be removed. Alex (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The results tables should stay the same that they always have been, and race-by-race entry lists should be removed altogether. Holdenman05 (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC) (moved from Talk:2019 Australian Grand Prix.)

@Holdenman05: saying things should be kept because that is how we have always done it is not considered a valid argument (per WP:ALLORNOTHING) because then nothing would ever change.

@Alex95-Ukraine: firstly they do change, an entry table would include practice drivers and driver replacements when they happen, and it being almost the same is not a reason not to include it. By removing entry tables it means that to see who is entered you need to visit the season article, but this makes very little sense. Why should readers have to go to the season article to see who is entered in a specific race. Every grand prix article should include a list of people and teams who took part and this means an entry table. SSSB (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Judging by what happened last year and in others (like 2008), it's if they happen, rather than when they do. And as I detailed below, people don't have to go to the season article to find out who entered. Even in an extremely rare case where some drivers ultimately didn't even drive in one session, like in the 2015 edition of the contested race (even a Good Article), all that information is detailed in the article and our readers can perfectly find out all the necessary information about every entered driver. Prose is much much more efficiënt. I really think that this is a strong case of being over-concerned.T v x1 22:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: It's simply unnecessary. If you want to look at an entry list, it's on the season article. In this era, the entry list would be constantly repeating information and if there are any changes it would be mentioned in the 'Background' section anyway. It's a no-brainer mate, get rid of the thing. Holdenman05 (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Holdenman05: no, each race article should be treated as independent to both other race articles and the article which covers the season, a casual reader may not be aware that driver lineups don't change constantly nor the original line up for that season, the fact the entry list is included in the season article does not mean that it should be excluded in race articles for that season. The only way we can comprehensivly cover everyone entered for a specific grand prix is with the inclusion of an entry table, otherwise we are relying on the reader attempting to deduce a races entries. SSSB (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: There's covering something comprehensively, and then there's oversaturating it. You're implying that the casual reader hasn't got the intelligence to match a number in one table with the same number in another, or read a couple of lines of text. What part of if there are any changes it would be mentioned in the 'Background' section anyway (which is the point Tvx is making and you haven't picked him up on that) did you miss or not understand? 'Background' also includes FP drivers too, you know. You're on your own here. Holdenman05 (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Holdenman05: firstly I am not on my own there are actually two discussions here covering the same thing (I know less than convenient) in the other discussion there is support, I am not suggesting the average reader doesn't haven't the intelligence I am saying they may not know to and that they shouldn't have to, I read Tvx1's point and understood it, but it is not just about the changes it is also about the regulars, the average reader might not know who the regulars are and should not have to look them up in a different article as I explained above. SSSB (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

You have one person supporting you, but there are many more disagreeing with you.And as I have explained before no one has to look up anything at all in other articles. Please stop clinging so desperately to such a clearly false argument.T v x1 14:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not false argument, without an entry table you need to find who is entered for that race, the article does not explicitly tell you, it requires you to go on a wild goose chase tring to find the entrants becuase it is not something you atre told it is something you are left to deduce, and last I checked it seems to be 3v4 (not that we vote). SSSB (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Why should they be completely independent? Who says that? Who wants that?? Our coverage should be in balance with the real world events we deal with. And the simple fact is that these real life events are not fully standalone, independent. They are rounds of a World Championship. And the competitors primarily enter the championship. Our coverage should be in balance with that. Again, again and again: over-concerned! There is no evidence whatsoever that our readers don‘t understand these articles without an entry list.T v x1 16:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I have come up with a possible comprise. (which I will also be posting on the other discussion on this page)

I am willing to accept a entries section that only includes replacements and FP drivers in prose form (as it was) but on a 2 conditions which I don't think are too much to ask

1)The FP drivers and replacement drivers will be listed under a explicit heading (level 2 or 3) with a further information tag linking to the season entries table i.e. like this

===Entries===

{{further information|2019 Formula One World Championship#Entries}}

2)The entries heading is present even if there are no changes (with a comment, "There were no changes in the team or driver line up from the last race" so that readers will be able to see the full entry list should they choose.

Per WP:CYCLE I will be implemeting this so you can see it (only just found the policy)SSSB (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: A man who cannot be moved will not move. Holdenman05 (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Having read this discussion there appears to be no consensus at the moment. It should revert to its current consensus which is not to have the inclusion until there is clear consensus to change. Simply pontificating it must be included is not conducive to constructive consensus building. 46.69.95.85 (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Including entrants in the first article of the season is relevant to that article as it is the season opener and the content of the 2019 Australian Grand Prix section is of relevant to the wider context of the article. Including the information on every article of every race of the season is duplication of information and is better found where the 2019 Australian Grand Prix points to on the main article. The articles should be focused on the races themselves and the context of those races not including every little piece of information which an editor can possibly imagine thinking of adding about Formula one in general or information which was the same as that in a previous article. It is redundant and unnecessary. 46.69.95.85 (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

There is more support for this compromise in the very similar discussion below. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing the direction of the second discussion.46.69.95.85 (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a consensus. This discussion involved several editors (from the top of my head at least 5) and none of them were opposed to the inclusion of a short section explaining the entrants, which was a compromise, the current consensus is for the inclusion. You are the only person, to my knowledge, who is opposed. As for duplication, there is none. The article only mentions the entrants once, not all readers will read the whole seasons worth of articles and not everyone will necessary know who is entered as explained above, the reason for that section is precisely so that readers can be linked to that section, but a small sentence is also required. SSSB (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop litigating this to death you are someone who just keeps flogging a dead horse give it a rest.46.69.95.85 (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Sebastian Vettel

Discussions are taking place at the article's talk page regarding the wording of the statement in the lead. Any additional input is welcome. Formulaonewiki (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Two template issues

Hello all, I have two template issues I'd like to raise. I should add I'm not at all sure how to edit templates myself, and also am not sure what the best way to handle these issues is:

Firstly, Template:Infobox Grand Prix race report doesn't have a field for "duration", or something like that, to allow for Grand Prix races which were not run to a scheduled distance (but not like the current 2 hour time limit). See Template_talk:Infobox_Grand_Prix_race_report#Race_duration_field

Secondly, Template:F1 season which appears at the start of each season article really isn't really suitable for 1950-80 since the first "FIA Formula One World Championship" wasn't held until 1981, but whether the best option is to modify this template to allow it, make a new template, or just use the generic Template:Motorsport season I'm not sure.A7V2 (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The 1981 name change is handled with a simple #ifexpr in the existing template.[7] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that! A7V2 (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

F1 locations

Hello! I'm an Italian not-logged-in-user (so I apologize in advance for any mistake in my English).

I've modified F1 circuit locations because some of them are not correct but just "colloquial" but my changes have been reverted because "major news sources often refer to them that way" (for example, Barcelona-Montmeló). I know what journalists often write and what people often say but I think that: 1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and for this reason it must be precise and rigorous; 2) it's simply wrong saying that a venue is in a big city instead of in the effective town nearby. Monza is not Milan, Saint-Denis is not Paris, New Jersey City is not New York City and so on.

I've read the "Wikipedia:Article titles" page and I agree with it but I also think that there is difference between a semplification from "Spielberg bei Knittelfield" to "Spielberg" and the approximation of the place of a circuit like "Kuala Lumpur" instead of "Sepang".

I've already done this kind of changes in Italian Wikipedia and the "wisemen" agreed with me, I hope that you "English speakers experts" will agree too...but I certainly won't feel resentment if you decide otherwise!

Thanks!

79.27.70.152 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.27.70.152 (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not easy to see all of the changes you have already made to the season articles. Perhaps you could list the locations that you think are incorrect and what the location should be instead, to see if anyone else agrees with you? Boothy m (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Boothy m: here are the edits, 1, 2 which I think cover all the changes that were made. SSSB (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This has all been discussed many times before. The general consensus is that precizing up to district our suburb is undue for season articles. We have circuit and grand prix articles to provide detail. None of the current information is actually wrong. None of examples cited above apply. We do not write Milan instead of Monza at all.T v x1 15:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I read both talks. I don't agree but I'm an occasional contributor (I'm not even registered...) and I consider you discussions good enough. Thanks for your time.79.27.70.152 (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Brawn Formula One cars

Are categories like this one needed? Eurohunter (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Outright Lap Record

Someone has gone through a bunch of circuit articles with the incorrect definition of outright lap record. --Falcadore (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"Formula One drivers from"

Why articles are often called like "Formula One drivers from Argentina" instead of simply "Argentine Formula One drivers"? Formula One drivers from Argentina may be German, American or of any other nationality. Eurohunter (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The other question would be why there is no articles for countries in Formula One like Italy in Formula One which would include drivers, teams, Grand Prix and even sponsors? Eurohunter (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Eurohunter, I am not sure why we call them F1 drivers from although I prefer your proposal (it could be argued that Albon is from GB as he has lived there most his life) (Although it is Argentine not Argentinian). I am also not opposed to article (or categories) such as Italy in Formula One although some would have to be redirected (for example Thailand only has drivers and would therefore redirect to Thai Formula One drivers). So all in all I have no objections although some would again only be created as redirects. SSSB (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Fixed Eurohunter (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Niki Lauda

Niki Lauda has been nominated at WP:ITNC for appearing on the Main Page either in the recent deaths section or as a blurb. However, it will not be posted until referencing issues have been addressed. Should be plenty of sources available to fix said issues. Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Scuderia Milano

There is a lot of confusion concerning the Milano entered cars entered between 1949 and 1951. There does not seem to be much of a concencus between sources on the web. It is certain that the Ruggieri brothers (Team owners) owned four 4CLT Maserati's between 1949-1951.

Chassis No.	Type
1594	4CLT/48
1602	4CLT/48
1611	4CLT/50
1612	4CLT/50
1 2

Felice Bonetto drove chassis 1611 at the 1950 Swiss and French GP. 3 Wikipedia list the engine as Maserati for the Swiss and "Milano" for the French GP. While the Milano 1 Bonetto drove at the Italian GP is listed with a Speluzzi engine. MotorSportMagazine, OldRacingCars and 8wForix list the engine as Speluzzi with MotorSportMagazine naming the engine Speluzzi and list them as Milano in the results section. Reading through the sources I think it is pretty clear the Speluzzi prepared engine was the same for all races and should be either named Speluzzi or Milano. The some goes for the 1611 4CLT/50 Gianfranco Comotti drove at the Italian GP.

Most sources list Onofre Marimóm in a Maserati 4CLT/50 at the 1951 French GP (which would be either chassis 1611 or 1612) OldRacingCars lists him in chassis 1612 with a Speluzzi engine.

Both Paco Godia and Juan Jover are listed in a 4CLT/48 here on wikipedia. The same goes for MotorSportMagazine. But OldRacingCars list Godia in Chassis 1611 which would be a 4CLT/50 and Jover in the Milano 1. The Jover Milano car is also listed under No. 42 instead of No. 46 on wiki.

It should also be noted that Paul Pietsch is currently listed in a 4CLT/48 at the 1950 Itaian GP. But some sources list Pietsch in Chassis 1612 (4CLT/50) as a Milano entry. 4, 5.

Any help or info on this subject would be greatly appreciated. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's what FORIX, ChicaneF1, StatsF1 and Paul Sheldon's A Record of Grand Prix and Voiturette Racing have to say:

Race	Driver	FORIX chassis	FORIX engine	ChicaneF1 chassis	ChicaneF1 engine	StatsF1 chassis	StatsF1 engine	Sheldon chassis	Sheldon engine
1950 SUI	Bonetto	Maserati 4CLT-50	Maserati 1.5 L4C	Maserati 4CLT-50	Maserati 1.5 L4C	Maserati Milano 4CLT/50	Maserati 4CLT L4 c 1.5	Maserati 4CLT/50 1611	Maserati 4CL
1950 FRA	Bonetto	Maserati 4CLT-50	Maserati 1.5 L4C	Maserati 4CLT-50	Maserati 1.5 L4C	Maserati Milano 4CLT/50	Maserati 4CLT L4 c 1.5	Maserati 4CLT/50 1611	Speluzzi
1950 ITA	Bonetto	Milano	Milano 1.5 L4C	Milano 1	Speluzzi 1.5 L4C	Maserati Milano 4CLT/50	Maserati 4CLT L4 c 1.5	Milano	Speluzzi
1950 ITA	Comotti	Maserati 4CLT-50	Milano 1.5 L4C	Maserati 4CLT-50	Milano 1.5 L4C	Maserati Milano 4CLT/50	Maserati 4CLT L4 c 1.5	Maserati 4CLT/50 1611	Speluzzi
1950 ITA	Pietsch	Maserati 4CLT-48 (Entrant: Paul Pietsch)	Maserati 1.5 L4C	Maserati 4CLT-48 (Entrant: Paul Pietsch)	Maserati 1.5 L4C	Maserati 4CLT/48 (Entrant: Privé (Private))	Maserati 4CLT L4 c 1.5	Maserati 4CLT/48 (Entrant: P Pietsch)	Maserati 4CL
1951 FRA	Marimón	Maserati 4CLT-50	Milano 1.5 L4C	Maserati 4CLT-50	Milano 1.5 L4C	Maserati Milano 4CLT/50	Maserati 4CLT L4 c 1.5	Milano	Speluzzi
1951 ESP	Godia	Maserati 4CLT-48	Maserati 1.5 L4C	Maserati 4CLT-48	Maserati 1.5 L4C	Maserati 4CLT/48	Maserati 4CLT L4 c 1.5	Maserati 4CLT/48 1611	Maserati 4CL
1951 ESP	Jover	Maserati 4CLT-48	Maserati 1.5 L4C	Maserati 4CLT-48	Maserati 1.5 L4C	Maserati 4CLT/48	Maserati 4CLT L4 c 1.5	Maserati 4CLT/48 1612	Maserati 4CL

I'll keep looking for more info. DH85868993 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

In David Hodge's "The French Grand Prix", for both 1950 and '51 they are listed as just "Maserati" (imlying a Maserati engine). In Mike Lang's Grand Prix!, it has:

1950 SUI: Maserati, 1950 FRA: Maserati, 1950 ITA: Bonetto in Maserati, Comotti in Maserati-Milan; 1951 FRA: Maserati, 1951 ESP: Both Maserati.

And no model or entrant names in either book unfortnately. I hope this helps. A7V2 (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Also for 1950 SUI, The John Player Yearbook 1972 which includes a brief report of every championship race, has Bonetto in a Maserati-Milan (but only has top 6 so no help for other entries).A7V2 (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. Reading through the sources from MotorSport and Forix I'm certain the 4CLT/50 used the same Speluzzi prepared engine for all the races. For whatever reason the documentation was not done consistent (which is a problem for all the Milano stats). I think the chassis stats listed in this table are (mostly) correct (ignoring the Italian GP from StatsF1 were the car of Bonetto is listed as a 4CLT/50). However I would like to point out that the sources I can find (silhouet and mmmsport) all list the Maserati's of Godia and Jover as 1611 and 1612 which are 4CLT/50 cars and not the 4CLT/48. Oldracingcars list the car of Godia as 1611 and that of Jover as the Milano 1. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest changing the engine off all the Maserati 4CLT/50 cars to Speluzzi. I feel like there is enough evidence that the same engine was used for all those races. I also think the cars of Godia and Jover at the Spanish GP in 1951 were both 4CLT/50 cars. But the only evidence we have is that some sources list both the cars as 1611 and 1612 which are 4CLT/50 cars. I did however find these pictures of Godia's car at that race: motorsportimages To me this car indeed looks like to be the 1611 4CLT/50, The same car Bonetto drove in 1950. I also found this one picture of Jover his car Barcelona 1951. This looks to be the same car (1612) Onofre Marimón drove at the 1951 French Grand Prix 1951 Reims. Feedback would be much appreciated. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to reach a consensus on what to do with Milano cars/engine. Should we change it like I suggested here above? Or should we leave it the way it is? Since only @DH85868993 ,@A7V2 replied to this topic I thought I'd ask what your thoughts are. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how helpful I was but I think your changes would be fine. A7V2 (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd normally say "we should follow what the sources say", but in this case the sources are so inconsistent/contradictory. It's also not clear to me at which point a "Maserati engine modified by Speluzzi" becomes a "Speluzzi (or Milano) engine". I realise this isn't much help. DH85868993 (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Given the research I have done I'm convinced Scuderia Milano used the same engine for all the races. Motorsport Magazine says Milano entered a car for Bonetto at the Swiss GP "with the highly boosted Speluzzi engine." So I would say they used that engine from the start. The problem indeed is the inconsistency between all sources. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Repeat winners by engine manufacturer

Should I make a list of repeat winners by engine manufacturer for every Grand Prix? It might be useful or interesting for people, but now it's up to them to count them from the wins by year list. I don't see any downsides in this if I do it for every Grand Prix. Carfan568 (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is an example of what Carfan568 is proposing. DH85868993 (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks good but how will you handle Ford/Cosworth (especially eg Australian Grand Prix where non-Cosworth Ford engined cars have won), and TAG/Porsche (eg in French and Germand GPs where both Porsche and TAG have won, but neither more than once)?A7V2 (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess I will classify them by the name that is in the constructor, so TAG and Porsche will not be the same, but I will put a note that who built it like here. Let me know if you think there is a better way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carfan568 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that will probably work for TAG, but I think Ford/Cosworth will be the main problem, in particular for the Australian Grand Prix but maybe for others too where non-Cosworth Fords have won. I think the best way to handle this case would be to list them all as Ford, then add a note that years 19xx-19yy were built by Cosworth. Also a side question: for example Austrian Grand Prix if we go with name rather than actual constructer (in the case of TAG), then would you count Red Bull's "TAG Heuer" engines as TAG also? A7V2 (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

By convention we count "TAG" and "TAG Heuer" separately; see Formula_One_engines#World_Championship_Grand_Prix_wins_by_engine_manufacturer as an example. DH85868993 (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

That probably makes the most sense. A7V2 (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hypocorsims

Hi,

There is currently an on going discussion at Talk:Niki Lauda regarding the use of hypocorsims. Interested editors are welcome to contribute. Thanks, SSSB (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Tyres

There is an ongiong discussion at Talk:2019 Formula One World Championship concerning the inclusion of which tyre compounds c1-c5 are used. Interested editors are welcome to contribute. SSSB (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

1956 Lancia/Ferrari/Lancia-Ferrari Etc

Carfan568's recent work on adding a list of multiple wins for engine manufacturers has made me notice an issue: What chassis/engine was the 1956 D50 (and presumably the 1957 cars but as they never won a race it's less noticeable)? Just looking at the races where the D50 won in 1956 (at least according to Lancia D50), which are namely the Argentine, Belgian, French, British and German GPs, the articles themselves have just Ferrari every time, as do the lists of winners EXCEPT for British Grand Prix which has Lancia-Ferrari. This of course also has an effect on the lists of multiple winners! I wonder how this should be handled (I suppose first thing would be to see how different sources refer to the 1956 cars, but it's also important to bear in mind that Lancia-Ferrari doesn't neccessarily mean it is a Lancia chassis with a Ferrari engine. A7V2 (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I've had a look in some of my books. Mike Lang's Grand Prix! lists them as Lancia-Ferrari throughout both 1956 and 1957, mentioning in the introduction to 1956: "...Ferrari relied entirely on the Lancia D50s... now known as Lancia-Ferraris... ". The same thing is done by Doug Nye in "British Grand Prix" and Peter Lewis in "Motor Racing in the Fifties". Cyril Posthumus' "Classic Racing Cars" suggests that they were known through 1957 as Lancia-Ferraris also. It's interesting then that online sources mostly have them listed as just Ferrari. Anyway, I'd like to know what others think, and maybe this has been discussed in the past too.A7V2 (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it's probably simplest/least confusing for readers if we identify both the cars and engines as "Ferraris" from the 1955 Italian Grand Prix onwards, noting that:

this is how formula1.com and FORIX (subscription site) identify them (acknowledging that other reputable sources, e.g. Motor Sport identify them as "Lancia-Ferraris")
this is consistent with how we have handled other situations where cars have transferred from one team to another, e.g. we identify the Wolf-Williams FW05 (which was originally the Hesketh 308C) as a "Wolf-Williams", not a "Hesketh-Wolf-Williams"; we identify the Apollon Fly (which started life as Williams FW03) as an "Apollon", not a "Williams-Apollon", we identify the McGuire BM1 (which started life as a Williams FW04) as a "McGuire", not a "Williams-McGuire", etc
I think it makes it easier for readers to understand how we arrive at Ferrari's ("as a constructor") wins/pole position/fastest lap totals, i.e. if we identify the cars as "Lancia-Ferraris", I think it's reasonable for readers to ask why we include their wins/pole positions/fastest laps in Ferrari's totals

DH85868993 (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with this. The standard should be what were they called. Whether or not it is convenient, or lines up with modern expectations shouldn't be relevant. The other examples you've mentioned were entered under the names you've given, similar to the recent situation with TAG Heur. That being said we do need to follow the sources, but I can't help but notice the older sources disagree with the more recent ones (since I assume the Motor Sport database is based on their old magazines), so I think it's more just a modern attempt to clean up statistics. Given recent discussions on such things I realise this will probably be an unpopular suggestion, but I think if we keep just Ferrari, then there needs to be some mention each time it's used that many sources refer to them as Lancia-Ferraris, and in particular in the lists of multiple winners of Grand Prix there should probably be a note in a similar way to Ford/Cosworth and Mercedes/Ilmor. (of course British Grand Prix will need to be changed as well for consistency). A7V2 (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

2009 GP articles: "cars that used KERS"

Some articles of 2009 Grand Prix' have a note saying: "Cars that used the KERS system are marked with "‡"" (for example: 2009 Malaysian Grand Prix has it, but 2009 Australian Grand Prix hasn't). Can anyone explain why this is here and why it is considered relevant? Are we also going to add marks for cars that used a double diffuser, or in the past, cars that used an F duct, cars that used a mass damper, cars that used semi-automatic gear shifting, cars that used active suspension, cars that used a turbo engine...? It is irrelevant which cars are running certain systems, they are all cars that meet the Formula One regulations as they were written at that time. I propose to remove these marks. If not, they should at least be added consistently to all 2009 articles. Per89 (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that it is somewhat relevant as you could argue they were using a different set of regulations. I think if anything this kind of thing should be more common for situations where a small number of cars are using different regulations to the others, especially the 1987 and 1988 naturally aspirated entries (even moreso than they are currently for 1987 when there was the Jim Clark and Colin Champman championships), and also the 3L entry in 2006, and I think using the "‡" is good as it doesn't take up much space. A7V2 (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@A7V2: reading between the lines of the KERS article you would find that they followed the same set of regs but some choose not to use the KERS system. Personally I don't think we should distinguish between the systems a car used in results tables unless the FIA recognised that they were advantaged/disadvantaged by implementing some kind of class system. The only instance I can think of where this happened is with the Clark and Chapman championships. With the exception of those season/events I agree with Per89 that we should not distinguish with who used different systems. SSSB (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: I take your point about 2009, I'm probably wrong about the rules! However, I would like to point out that some authors do make these kinds of distinctions in results, for example Doug Nye in "British Grand Prix" marks unsupercharged cars for 1930s and up to 1951 (there were no supercharged cars after that). Also regarding 1988, they may have removed the separate championship but the regulations were quite different (in fact more different than 1987), for example a lower minimum weight for NA cars, and a limited amount of fuel for Turbo cars. But really I think this kind of thing is more of a matter of personal taste: I mildly prefer making the distinction (in the case of 2009 KERS), but if I'm in the minority then so be it. A7V2 (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@A7V2: well if authors distinguish then we should reflect that. This should probably be restricted to choices. The choice to use KERS. The choice to run n a engine's. The choice to run turbo cars. However all of these should only be included if it is stated in the rules that there is a choice to be made and reliable sources also distinguish the difference. Instances where 1 team exploited a loop hole in the regs should only be mentioned in the article for the car, season and/or constructor (such as brand's double diffuser) but not in results matrices. However my preference would be against it. Really all the instances where you are proposing marking the distinction should be discussed individually as each case is individual. SSSB (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's right to eliminate. Throughout the history of the championship there is data that would be much more important of the use or not of the KERS, like the turbo engines, electronic help, use or not of ailerons, etc. and they are not placed either. Placing some would create that is ambiguous enough that note is relevant and which is not. --Adriel 00 (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB:@Adriel 00: As I said I'm not hugely fussed either way, but in the (supposedly) "Official Formula 1 Season Review", they asterix the cars with KERS are marked in every results table: "* Denotes car fitted with KERS" — Preceding unsigned comment added by A7V2 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@A7V2: If there were different regulations for cars using different systems (as in your example of the turbo era) then I agree it is very relevant to indicate who was running what. This was not the case in 2009 however; a team's choice whether or not to use KERS did not have any further regulatory implications. That's why I think it looks quite arbitrary. The use of KERS was a choice just like the dozens or hundreds of other choices that have to be made when designing an F1 car. I do think it might be a relevant thing to add to 2009 Formula One World Championship, which currently mentions "four teams opted to use the system" without specifying which teams. Per89 (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Per89: The reason I think it's worth having (apart from, as I mentioned above, that this is done in an officialish source) is that it's not like in other cases where some teams will adopt a new technology (wings, this or that kind of suspension etc etc) but actually whether they use something that has newly for 2009 been allowed for the first time. There was nothing in the rules (to my knowledge) prevending a 1950 Formula One car from using pushrod suspension, aerodynamic wings, or disk brakes, but if they'd fitted a KERS system which is in effect a second engine, I bet that would have been a problem. But I think your suggestion is good for the 2009 season aricle even if that's all it will be. A7V2 (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Niki Lauda dies and Wikipedia pretends it didn't happen. What do you think?

I have been admiring the focus of this project in article quality and precision. However, I believe that we didn't do what we had to do regarding the coverage of Lauda's death. As you all probably know, Niki did not appear in the "In the news" section of the English wikipedia home page, not even in the "recent deaths" section. The reason was that Niki's article was inadequately sourced. I am starting this discussion here because I believe that this is something we should have done better. What do you think? Rentzepopoulos (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Rentzepopoulos, undoudtedly we could have done better in the fact that his article lacks citations and this is a problem across many Wikipedia articles not just F1 based ones. I would recommend that you add {{more citations needed}} or {{BLP sources}} (this tags them as needing work = more editors) to any insufficently sourced articles and then set about adding as many sources as you can. The problem is that there is a hige backlog which we need to get through. I would proritse living people so that the Lauda inconvience won't happen again and per WP:BLP This is not something that needs discussed, only pointed out and then fixed across all of our articles. SSSB (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Lauda is on my to do list, but I did not anticipate him passing so suddenly. I believe nobody did... really a shame. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

"All-time table"

An IP has gone round and added an "all-time table" to some, but not all, of the List of Formula One drivers from ___ articles (example here). Is this really necessary? I recall we had timelines a while ago but there was a shitfight and a half over the formatting of those so we got rid of them. Holdenman05 (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Holdenman05: first of all do you mind supplying a link to this "shitfight and a half" I would quite like to read what happened. Personally I don't mind for the ones that have been done so far, this is simply a summary of List of Formula One drivers for each nation therefore indicating no violation of WP:NOSTATS, (if it's in List of Formula One drivers then there is no reason it shouldn't be anywhere else) and I think that if we have a Formula One drivers from X they should all be included with an indication in the article of how the drivers performed. We obviously can't give a written account of thier carrer for all of them but this is a good attempt and probably as close as we are going to get, (it's certainly a lot more useful than what we had before), all in all I'm in favour. SSSB (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Lap leader charts

During the GA review of 2015 Mexican Grand Prix, the reviewer Saskoiler suggested a caption to be added for the lap leader chart. I do not really consider this necessary and I also do not know if it is technically possible, so I wanted to get your thoughts on it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, why would we need a caption? The "Lap Leader" title I think makes it clear enough, we'd just be repeating that surely? CDRL102 (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Why aren't we archiving this? What purpose does it serve staying here? SSSB (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: No idea, I do not mind this being archived. Does anyone know who added the bot exception? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It was me apparently. I added it because at the time this section contained a box detailing our progress on getting the 2015 F1 articles to GA status. On 19 August 2017, however, Cherkash added a section title above the box resulting in the later archiving of that part of the section (which I wanted to prevent), leaving a now pointless part on the lap charts stuck not being archived.T v x1 11:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Just thought I should let you know that I removed the do not archive a few days ago. SSSB (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Cosworth/Ford Grand Prix results

I have been working on a result table for all Cosworth/Ford Grand Prix results here. I wondered were we should list these results as we list most engine results in a separate section on constructor result pages. But Cosworth only entered one WC race as a constructor so I'm not sure if we should create such a page for these results. However I don't think we should list these results on the Cosworth page as it is quite a large table. Thoughts? Jahn1234567890 (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to have a single page (called Cosworth/Ford Grand Prix results?) to contain both constructor and engine results. I definitely agree that the table is too large to be included in the Cosworth page. DH85868993 (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

They have not always been as an association in the construction of F1 engines, or am I wrong? I do not think it's right to mention Marussia 2013's on the "Ford results page", for example. Although if it is not easy to distinguish when they were independent and when not, Cosworth/Ford is the best eption. --Adriel 00 (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

† symbol

Hello, do not you think that placing the symbol "†" to refer to deceased persons could be controversial because it is related to a specific religion? It's not that I think that, but there may be people on the internet who do not like it. It could be changed by any other: ‡, ~, ≠ ... Thanks. --Adriel 00 (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Potentially. However I am opposed to indicating if someone is alive. It is irrelevant to all of our articles with the exception of articles about people. I don't see the point of indicating death in lists, all the reader needs to know is if they are currently racing. SSSB (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I have the same opinion. --Adriel 00 (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Totals rows in driver career summary tables

An editor has added "Totals" rows to Charles_Leclerc#Career_summary and Lance_Stroll#Career_summary. I've started a discussion at WT:MOTOR. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the existing discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained abbreviations

There's a discussion in progress at WT:MOTOR regarding unexplained abbreviations in George Russell's F1 results table. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Behra/Trintignant 1951 Italian Grand Prix

A discussion has been started regarding whether Maurice Trintignant or Jean Behra should be listed as the driver of the No. 50 Simca-Gordini at the 1951 Italian Grand Prix. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the existing discussion. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Driver of the Day

An editor has started a discussion about the best place (if any) to locate information about the Driver of the Day elections. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the existing discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Violations of WP:LINKCOLOR and MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR

There's a discussion in progress regarding violations of WP:LINKCOLOR and MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR with reference to navbox templates. Several of this project's navboxes (e.g. {{Red Bull Racing}}) are potentially affected. Interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Rich energy on the 2019 entry table

There is a on going discussion at Talk:2019 Formula One World Championship#Rich Energy as to how the Haas should be displayed in the entrants table. Interested editors are welcome to contribute. Thanks, SSSB (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is redundent as the original tweet which caused the edits which caused the debate proved to be fake. SSSB (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Fastest lap indicator

A discussion has started at Template talk:F1 Drivers Standings#Fastest Lap Indicator about how we indicate the fastest lap in results matrixs. SSSB (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Too many unhelpful redirects

I've posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport regarding redirects from race car model names to the manufacturer even when the manufacturer's article doesn't mention the model, and would appreciate if interested editors would have a look there. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained changes to articles by User talk:Maciej Mucharski.

This editor seems to be making unexplained changes to Formula One articles. They are not leaving edit summaries but at a cursory glance they seem to be altering results to conform to current point scoring practice with no supporting reason. Can anyone see a reason for these changes? Britmax (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I can see a lot of potentially unhelpful edits, but at least one was positive: [8]. A7V2 (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I've also noticed that this user has been changed the championship positions drivers and teams achieved regarding 1990's and 2000's season to "NC" even though the FIA credited them with a position.T v x1 13:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you think that they are changing these to conform to current rules, which of course don't apply? I am on the verge of reverting all the unexplained ones that are purely a change of number. Britmax (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It appears so.T v x1 14:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Allen Berg

Hi

I just made a change to the Allen Berg page (diff)

It seemed a little vague when I read it, as it was blaming cancellation of the Canadian GP for his demise, when it was rather that he could not find sponsorship to buy a seat.

I edited it, but am feeling it might be a little off to say he "bought a seat".

Can someone give it a going over please to make sure I was not too harsh?

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong, but I think you should add sources of that information. --Adriel 00 (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Adriel 00: Eh? The diff I already included above, clearly shows the addition of the ref? Chaosdruid (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox - nationality

Hi

Just reading the Albon article and found he is apparently Thai.

I understand that the "nationality" parameter has been subverted to mean "racing as", or "racing under [this flag]"

Can we make that more clear?

We can place a note in the infobox template to differentiate between nationality and racing as a [nation]al ? e.g.:

|birth_place       = London, UK

|death_date        = 

|death_place       = 
 
|nationality       =  British  Representing Thailand   <!--- If racing under a different flag than their nationality, put national flag, then racing as flag -->

Maybe put the second flag on a new line?

Either way, I thnk it is important to realise these are BLPs, not F1 career pages. I have made a comment on the Albon talk page also. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to contain both in the infobox, however not like the above. Legally he is as much Thai as he is British, he is a dual national he is both British and Thai in that respect and in equal measure regardless of where he was born or where he has/is lived/living. Saying British, representing Thailand is just as misleading as simply stating Thai. This would also lead to a situation where we would have to put Strolls Belgian nationality in his infobox (as an example)
SSSB (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment Also note that there is a similar discussion at WT:MOTOR#Licenced vs. actual nationality.
SSSB (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I prefer to keep the infoboxes as is. We have always used them indicate racing nationality. This also the only way we can have that field while following the MOS. The infoboxes are no intended to be a full coverage of everything in the article. The detailed explanation on these special cases with regards to nationalities can be provided in the prose. Remember these are BLP's but BLP's of racing drivers. The reason these are notable are their racing careers and that's what should be given most weight. Drivers like Romain Grosjean, Nico Rosberg, Pascal Wehrlein or Lance Stroll have a second nationality (Swiss, Finnish, Mauritius and Belgian respectively) but do not really use them in their notable activities and therefore putting them in the infobox would be giving them undue weight. There are many BLP's out there on people who's nationality is not important to their notable activities and which don't have a nationality in their infoboxes at all.T v x1 16:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chaosdruid: further the nationality field is under the F1 carrer heading. It therefore makes sense to only include the nationality they raced under and let the prose (traditionally it's first sentence) to cover the dual nationality details.
SSSB (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe that discussion is for tables and f1 pages that are NOT BLP "...placed into entry lists and results using 'licenced nationality'..."

This is a BLP page, not a racing page. How can you not get this?

~~If he has dual nationality, then he should have both shown.~~ Struck after rechecking MoS

"Use the flag and name of the country (be it a state or a nation) that the person (or team of people) officially represented, regardless of citizenship, when the flag templates are used for sports statistics and the like."

"Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that they correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise. " Chaosdruid (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chaosdruid: Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that they correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise., does not support your argument as Thai is Albon's legal nationality. He is both Thai and British in a legal sense, it's called dual nationality. This has been explained to you on the Alexander Albon talk page. As for Use the flag and name of the country (be it a state or a nation) that the person (or team of people) officially represented, regardless of citizenship, when the flag templates are used for sports statistics and the like, the nationality in the infobox precedes the sport statistics and is within the section headed F1 career (which exclusively covers his F1 career stats) and therefore that supports the opposing side to yours as it confirms we should only use the nationality he represents in the infobox.
SSSB (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Once again, that follows on from "...when the flag templates are used for sports statistics and the like" - not when they are the infobox for the person's BLP article

And please, do NOT try and explain to me what dual nationality means, it is the whole point of this discussion!!!

You prove my point, he has dual-nationality NOT JUST THAI ...

THe infobox is a BLP infobox

For example, Zola Budd, Usman Khawaja or Jofra Archer Chaosdruid (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The last two examples you cited here actually counter your own point. Khwaja and Archer do not have a nationality in their infobox other than their national side in their sport. Their are many other BLP's here on Wikipedia (e.g. Reese Witherspoon, Dolph Lundgren, Peter Stormare, Daniel Craig) which do not have a nationality in the infobox at all. We have no obligation to include all legal nationalities of a person in an infobox. And again, this is not just a BLP, but a BLP of a racing driver. It solely exists because of his notability as a racing driver and its infobox was created to summarize the most important facts regarding that racing driver.T v x1 11:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Just a side note: Multiple nationalities is not the only problem. Jochen Rindt raced with an Austrian licence even though he never held an Austrian passport. But I believe this issue has been discussed often enough. The way it is dealt with on Rindt's article seems to be the best way to me. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chaosdruid and Tvx1: this sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. ~~I'm happy to support it.~~
SSSB (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Current season positions in "Formula One drivers from <country>" articles

Currently, in all the "Formula One drivers from <country>" articles, we list the current championship position for the current drivers from that country, e.g. in Formula One drivers from Thailand, we have:

Alexander Albon

2019 season position: 15th

Do people think the championship position needs an asterisk and a "season still in progress" footnote, like we have in the career summary and F1 results tables in the drivers' articles? I'm happy to do the work if people think this would be an improvement. DH85868993 (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds great.

But, unfortunately, he is not from Thailand, he is from England.

I understand that it means "representing Thailand".

It also seems to say "from Thailand", which might lead the average reader to assume he was born, or was brought up, in Thailand.

How are we to avoid that issue? We cannot just assume that a reader knows what we mean can we? Chaosdruid (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chaosdruid: the best way to tackle your concerns is to start a requested move discussion to your chosen title.
SSSB (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to specify that, after all we do the same in every other results table.
SSSB (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Another thought here: Albon is stated to be "the most successful" driver from Thailand. That is highly debatable. He has more points that Bira, but with the current points system, Bira would have scored more... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Kinda off topic. This is best reserved for the talk page of that specific article. However to explain my choice. I prefer to use quantifiable measures as this way it is less likely to be 'corrected' and it's more obvious how we reached that conclusion which is also then easier to calculate in the first place.
SSSB (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC) expanded at 17:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: I've removed "most successful" from the Thailand article, giving my reasons in Talk:Formula One drivers from Thailand if you are interested. A7V2 (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic: Why Formula One drivers from Russia shows flag in the infobox, whie Thai's article shows Albon's photo? I think that we should be consistent here. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I used the country's flags after the start of the discussion on the issue (see #Image) so that I could compare the 2 styles, flags (which they use for country at the olympics) vs. Most successful which is what I would like to do for the f1 equivilant. When the discussion is complete I will change all the articles to be consistent.
SSSB (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC) expanded at 17:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I really think a flag of that size is inappropriate.T v x1 21:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox for the Formula One drivers by country articles

I propose that we create a infobox for the Formula One drivers by country articles.

Why do I propose this? Currently it is quite hard to see how successful a nation has been in Formula One. For example lets take Formula One drivers from the Netherlands. The lead tells us they have podiums, points, at least 1 pole, at least 1 win and how many drivers and this is one which i copyeditied and added some details to. You don't know if they have fastest laps or how many of anything they've got. You don't know how many races they entered or started, you don't know what there best championship result is. In the articles where this information is present it is often buried deep within the article and thats if it there at all. Okay, some articles have all time tables but not all of them do (and i'm not going to go through and add them as some countries have 100+ drivers) and this is just easier for the reader. And this would be first step in perhaps making some of them good articles.

Why don't you just be bold and do it? Because templates aren't my strengh. I don't want to go through and make these and then have them deleted because they are not wanted. (Although I will just take {{Infobox F1 driver}} and make some changes.)

What about maintaning them? I'll be happy to do that. I think its fair to say I'm be reliable enough to do this besides I could use {{F1stat}}, {{PAGESINCATEGORY}} (for the number of drivers) and Help:Calculation. (For example Dutch podiums is {{#expr:2+{{F1stat|VER|podiums}}}} which would produce 114 (which is correct) and updates automatically every time {{F1stat}} is updated with a podium for max, the number of Dutch driver is {{#expr:{{PAGESINCATEGORY|Dutch Formula One drivers}}-1}} (-1 is there becuase Formula One drivers from the Netherlands is also in the category) which produces 18 and updates every time a new driver is added to the category) meaning minumum maintainence is required.

Where will the template be? Probably {{Infobox F1 nationality}}.

So, what do we think?
SSSB (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Do fans support a driver JUST because he/she is from their country, or rather a specific team or specific driver?

I could understand it in football, cricket, or any sport where national, or regional, teams play one another internationally.

To be honest I was a Man Utd fan until half the team were not from the area, then stopped completely supporting football at all when most of the team stopped being even British - as it seemed all British teams were - I now only watch England games (well, some of the time as we always get tired after 60 mins :( )

F1 is not a sport like that though - I don't follow only drivers or teams of my country (just because they are from my country) and don't really know anyone that does

In fact, the only driver I followed from the UK even, was Button; the only team from the UK was Brawn.

Most of the drivers I supported were from other countries - same with teams

I think it would be pointless to group by nationality. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Chaosdruid. Firstly yes, people do support a driver because they come from a certain country, look at the rise in popularity of F1 in Holland due to Verstappen. Or Poland with Kubica. But more importantly thats not what this discussion is about. We already have the pages and the categories, this is a proposal for an Help:infobox to be included in the articles.
SSSB (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC) expanded at 15:01 (UTC)

Still think it is unecessary.

Can you quantify the "rise in popularity of F1 in Holland due to Verstappen"?

While the fans being at races is more evident, perhaps the fans are more prepared to travel to see him.

Can you provide a link or two to something that says that? I have seen a couple that say the more visible fans is because the Dutch football team is not doing so well. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chaosdruid: you seem to misunderstand what this discussion is about. Based on your above comments you seem to be under the impression I am proposing the creation of the articles themselves. However articles such as Formula One drivers from France already exist for every country which has had 2 or more drivers. This discussion is to determine if there is consensus for those article to contain an infobox. So far you comments don't appear to adress this issue but instead argue against the existance of the articles themselves. Thanks,
SSSB (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with this idea. I'm wondering if an infobox for engine manufacturers could be done as well... Carfan568 (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Right, no one is against this idea (although Chaosdruid is aginst the articles themselves he said nothing in favour for nor against the infoboxes. I will therefore start creating at User:SSSB/Infobox F1 nationality so that it won't be speedily deleted as being unused whilst I am still working on it. Any help would be appricated. Thanks,
SSSB (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Done, can be found at {{Infobox F1 nationality}}.
SSSB (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

But it doesn't work, any help would be appricated
SSSB (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

And, oince again, I will repeat what I said above for you to CLEARLY understand ... "I think it is unecessary"

And, for clarity, the "it" was the infoboxes. So yes, that is EXACTLY what I was objecting to, not the pages.

I find it bizarre that you dismissed me, putting it down to "Oh! He's talking about the pages, not the infoboxes"

The infoboxes are the thing that is going to get on the drivers' pages and be nationalistic. That is EXACTLY what I was objecting to Chaosdruid (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

And, for clarity, the "it" was the infoboxes. So yes, that is EXACTLY what I was objecting to, not the pages.

Evidently I am not the only one who thought so. Dozens of people visit this page a day and none of them pointed out my unintentional error and statements such as I think it would be pointless to group by nationality. don't help this impression as in no way does an infobox do that any more than the categories or articles that already exist on the issue.

Now to get to the issue at hand:

Firstly, I fail to see how you Man U. example can be used to oppose the infobox as it is not a national or regional team, it may be named after the region but it doesn't represent them. F1 drivers on the other do, to a certain level, represent thier contries, they win and they hear their national anthem, doesn't happen with Man U.
Secondly, the presence of an infobox doesn't make the article any more or less nationalistic. An infobox summaries an articles content. There is nothing in the infobox which the article shouldn't contain in prose (at the moment it does but that is because the articles are, sadly, lacking) and the articles are exclusivly about drivers from one particluar country, the presence of an infobox doesn't change that.
Thirdly, and most importantly, people do support drivers just because they are from the same country. Take a look at Dutch veiwing figures, in 2014 they had no drivers, 1% of the F1 broadcast blog was from the Netherlands, in 2015 with 1 driver in a midfield team this rose to 1.3% and then for 2016 when for the majority of the season they had a driver in a top team this figure was 1.8%. As Verstappen moved to better teams the propotion of Dutch visiters to the Live blog almost doubled over 3 years. This is no coincidence. [9] [10]. With this one notice how in 2007 the viwing figures jumped up, this was when Hamilton came within an inch of winning the title and the UK's viewing figures jumped accordingly and a steady decrease, this increased then continued up to 2011 as Hamilton became for successful and continued to be in the championship fight well into the season (the 2012 drop is likly caused by the BBC having their rights restricted we see a similar trend in 1996 when another British driver (Damon Hill) won the title. So yes, people are more inclined to watch F1 if they have a driver from their country. A country success is propotional to its popularity in that country.
SSSB (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Image

I don't have strong feeling either way about the existence of these infoboxes (hence my non-participation in the discussion to this point). But looking at the example in Formula One drivers from Thailand, I wonder if having the image of a single driver at the top of the infobox might result in some readers thinking that the stats in the infobox apply to that driver only? (I realise there's a line which says "Drivers: 2", but I wonder if some readers might miss that)? Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I used that image as I thought it was the most informative when combined with the caption. However per mos:leadimage you may be right.
SSSB (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

As this is a violation of MOS:LEADIMAGE and in the absence of any further comment I have changed all the images in the infoboxs to the flags of the respective nation.
SSSB (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Per country

I saw the article for Formula One drivers from India has been nominated for WP:GA, is this topic even notable enough for an article? Notability isn't inherited, and there have only been two drivers; I'm worried this isn't a notable topic, let alone a good artice. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Jaguar R1 infobox image

[11] Please see talkpage discussion when you have the time, thanks. --Vauxford (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC which impacts this WikiProject's articles

An RfC has started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#RFC on referencing results sections in motorsport articles which has wide implications for this WikiProject. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discssion.
SSSB (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible new table format

How do people feel about the table format being used here? I got the idea from video gaming articles, particularly when a game has been nominated for multiple awards.

A couple of years ago we moved to a single-source format, where we took sources out of the table and moved them to a summative bar at the bottom of the table as a way of tidying it up. It works, but I feel like the availability of sources has since decreased:

Autosport and motorsport.com are now owned by the same publisher and basically re-post each others' content.
Speedcafe is an Australian site and so does not feature extensive international coverage.
F1 Fanatic (or Race Fans as I think it is known now) became more like a fan site.
Sky Sports is hit-and-miss (some good race coverage, but then they go and turn a story about Anthione Hubert into a story about Hamilton).
I don't think anybody has taken Andrew Benson and the BBC seriously for years.

The point is that I think we need to start looking for a greater range of sources, particularly sources from the mainstream media; the aforementioned table format seemed like a good way of doing that. The problem is that edits like this, which brought the 2020 article in line with the WP:F1 conventions also excised a lot of good quality sources. I'm wondering if there is a way of reformatting tables like this. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

But such a change is unnecessary. The only reason that the your first example is the way it is is because there isn't one single source that covers all of that information. The reason the edit which is the subject of second example happened is because a source appeared which meant that the other 22 were no longer needed to verify the content, thus tidying the table siginificantly. The purpose of a source is to verify the information that precedes/goes around it not to make for good reading when your finished reading Wikipedia. So long as the source is reliable and fits with other similar quidelines/policies the quality of source is mostly irrelevant. There is no need to use 23 sources to verify the 2020 calender (for example) when 1 will do the job just fine. Natrually we can go outside the above sources (and BBC isn't all bad, Palmer's column is always a good read) and you are more than welcome to replace sources of you find a better one, but to use a dozen sources to verify something when it can just as easily be verified with 1 source is silly and is basiclly an excuse to insert sources for the sake of it more than anything else. Besides if you want to improve the quality of our sources a better place to start would be to replace the primary sources (i.e. FIA documents) that currently fill our race reports (8 out of 13 sources on 2019 Belgian Grand Prix and thats before the race even starts)
SSSB (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC), expanded at 08:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think they are actually primary sources in that case. A primary source there would be video footage of a session. I think you might be mixing up secondary sources with independent sources. A secondary source isn't necessarily independent. In any case I do not believe there is a problem with the use of these sources to provide exact entries, penalties and session results.T v x1 12:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB

"Natrually we can go outside the above sources (and BBC isn't all bad, Palmer's column is always a good read)"

I have a few issues with choosing some articles from one source, but not others. Benson lost credibility back in 2016 when he suggested that if Hamilton could take Rosberg out in Abu Dhabi without damaging his own car, then he should ... then led the chorus calling for Vettel to be crucified when he rammed Hamilton. Palmer's column might be good, but it's a case of once bitten, twice shy.

At the very least, we need to do more to find new sources because the pool of sources we rely on is shrinking. Publishers aren't immune to having an agenda. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17,

Publishers aren't immune to having an agenda.

Never said they were, thats the reason why Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry is tagged with {{POV}}, becuase we used almost exclusivly British sources.

I have no objection to you looking for new sources that we can use regulary but I feel this is a personal crusade for you, not one for the whole WikiProject as there are still plenty of sources to go around. I myself have cited The Guardian and The Telegraph in the past. Feel free to share any new sources you find.
SSSB (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Red error messages in References sections

In case anyone's wondering about the red error messages which have suddenly appeared in the "References" sections of numerous F1-related articles (see 2017 Formula One World Championship#References as an example), they're due to a recent change to the "cite" templates. The matter is currently under discussion here. I'd recommend we don't do anything to "fix" the references until that discussion is concluded. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The issue seems to have been resolved for the time being (i.e. all the red error messages have gone away). DH85868993 (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The issue has not quite been resolved. The error messages have been hidden for the time being, but the issue remains. There were two actually. The first is the dead-url parameter being deprecated, the second is the work/website/newspaper/magazine parameter being made mandatory. The first issue is going to be dealt with by a bot, so it doesn't require any manual labor by us. The second issues remains though and still causes most of our articles to be included in a cite-error category. The parameter being mandatory is something that never actually received consensus and that change should really be undone. But for some reason that still hasn't happened.T v x1 11:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

[1] ttps://baalis.com/switzerland/formula-1-tests-on-new-cars-from-barcelona-circuit-catalunya/

[1]