Jump to content

Talk:2017 Formula One World Championship/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Entrant column

I'm looking at the driver table, trying to figure out how we could condense it, because right now, it's quite overloaded. I was wondering if we could cut some of the superfluous stuff, particularly the entrant column. It doesn't really add anything. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. Just keep this in mind, so you're probably going to face some opposition.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
If you're willing to hold the fact that someone changed their mind against them in discussion, what are you doing here? A key part of consensus is persuading others of the merits of your argument. Also, including Pirelli is some way, shape or form is entirely appropriate since it's a technical element of the car. But here, the entrant column doesn't include anything that isn't already in the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
We need to keep the entrant column. It's been there for every single season and we can't just ditch it now. The team is called "Williams Martini Racing" not "Williams-Mercedes". The team is called "Mercedes AMG Petronas Formula One Team" not "Mercedes". JoeyofthePriuses (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
"The team is called "Williams Martini Racing" not "Williams-Mercedes"."

Not according to the FIA. All of their results are credited to Williams-Mercedes. "Williams Martini Racing" is just the name used by the team when referring to themselves. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

http://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2017/2017-f1-entry-list. We need team names. The last 67 F1 season articles have had an entrant column and we're not just changing it now. JoeyofthePriuses (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
You know very well that the FIA recognizes both team names and constructor names, so don't act like you don't. So yes the FIA recognizes "Williams Martini Racing" as the name of the team. "Williams-Mercedes" is the constructor name.Tvx1 02:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
And in most cases, the team name and constructor name are identical. The only difference is the inclusion of the sponsor, which is irrelevant to the season. The entire column is redundant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually they're not. There are many, many cases in the first four decades of the World Championship where multiple entrants with their own distinctive names entered cars from the same constructor.Tvx1 03:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
So apply it to those articles. Don't force an article to be saddled with redundant content because of something that hasn't been relevant for twenty-five or more years. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)00
"The last 67 F1 season articles have had an entrant column and we're not just changing it now."

Articles are fluid. Just because previous articles do it, that doesn't automatically mean that it will always be done that way Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do you want to change it anyway? It's not "overloaded", it shows everything necessary. JoeyofthePriuses (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it does show everything necessary. The entrant column is not necessary. What does the entrant column add? The official team names? The article doesn't use them, and the teams are more commonly known by their constructor names anyway. Sponsors? We used to include title sponsors of races in the calendar until we reached a consensus that the sponsors were not relevant to the season, so I would argue that they are not relevant in the driver table. Flags? You don't get any more or less points for using a particular flag. The repetition of "Formula One Team"? What on earth does that add?
In short, there is nothing in the entrant column that is of such vital importance to the article that the column is necessary. Any informatiom that might be relevant is addressed elsewhere in the article, and in a more appropriate place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Can we all stop removing this from the table for the time being. The level of editing regarding this issue is disruptive and it's clear that a number of users object to the removal. Such an important change really needs consensus.Tvx1 03:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

That's what BRD is all about. I just removed a duplicated table.
@Thecatwhogotthemilk:
"This table is a standard template across all previous seasons of F1. please don't delete columns."
That's not an argument for keeping it. "We should do it this way because we've always done it this way" amounts to nothing because it doesn't address the issue: what does the column add to the article? It's completely redundant. All of the content of the column is addressed elsewhere in the article, and that elsewhere is somewhere more appropriate.
The only time that having separate columns for entrant and constructor would be useful is when the entrant and constructor are two completely different entities—and the rules of the sport say that only a constructor may enter their specific cars. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Does nobody have a response to this? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Give people more than a couple of hours to respond. Not everyone lives in your time zone.Tvx1 18:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

So, any thoughts? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Speedy Question Mark — I have been suggesting that the column be removed for a week. This discussion has been here for as long and nobody has been able to provide a good reason for keeping it. So instead of throwing a tantrum and demanding that things are kept the way they were without a reason, how about you do something constructive and participate in a discussion? Or is that asking too much of you? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this until now so I apologize. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
But what is your opinion?Tvx1 15:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't need changing in my opinion, Its fine how it is. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Would you care to back that up with an actual argument? I've already outlined why I think it should be removed; the least you can do is explain why you think it should be kept. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
As it's the only place we associate the entrants with their constructor names, we need to keep it. OTOH, we wouldn't lose anything if we got rid of the "tyre" column. That adds nothing that a single short sentence in the prose couldn't add. -- de Facto (talk). 19:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
That would be a valid point if the entrant and the constructor were two different entities. As it is, they are one and the same. So rather than clearing up a source of confusion, we just have a redundant column.
If you want to talk about the tyre column, perhaps you would be better-served starting a separate discussion rather than trying to piggyback off this one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Whilst the entrant name and the constructor name they use are different it is useful to associate them somewhere.
You started this thread with the sentence: "I'm looking at the driver table, trying to figure out how we could condense it, because right now, it's quite overloaded." So I was making a suggestion to help achieve that; remove the apparently pointless tyre column. -- de Facto (talk). 21:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
How is it useful? It never comes up anywhere else in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
It associates the constructor name with the entrant. It could be linked to the team article rather than the constructor name linking there too. -- de Facto (talk). 22:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Except that it's the only place the entrant even comes up. There's no need to link it to the team article when the constructor column already does that—and the constructor column is a better place for it, since they're the names the teams are commonly known as.
Like I said, the entrant column doesn't contribute anything to the article that isn't already done elsewhere and done better. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
This is objectively false. Ctrl+F "Haas F1 Team," for example. Haas' full team name is mentioned only once in the body of the article - and that's in the entrant column. It is a unique field that quite obviously provides value. I don't understand your fascinating with stripping away useful information. Wicka wicka (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't find it useful at all, and I think you're grossly overstating the potential for someone to confuse "Haas" and "Haas F1 Team" as being two completely different things—especially when there is other information provided alongside the use of "Haas F1 Team" (the drivers) that make it easier still to identify "Haas" and "Haas F1 Team" as being one and the same.

There is no useful information in the entrant column. There's just a lot of repetition. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It's the full, official name of the team! How is this not useful??? What even is your mentality here, it's baffling. At this point I sincerely have to suggest that your ideas verge on vandalism. You're suggesting that we remove real, useful, accurate information from this article. It's indefensible! Wicka wicka (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
"It's the full, official name of the team! How is this not useful???"
Because it's almost never used in articles. Takes Mercedes' full name, for instance: Mercedes AMG Petronas Motorsport. Where is it used? Every single reference to the team uses the name Mercedes. The only people who use the full, official team names are the teams, and even then only when referring to themselves. There is nothing contained within the entrant column that isn't already covered elsewhere, and when it is covered elsewhere, it's in a more appropriate place.
"You're suggesting that we remove real, useful, accurate information from this article. It's indefensible!"
Once upon a time, the calendar used to include the full, official names of Grands Prix. Rather than being listed as the "Australian Grand Prix", it was listed as "2017 Rolex Formula 1 Australian Grand Prix"—but the article still contained a separate column containing a link to Australian Grand Prix. It was, as you put it, real, accurate and useful information. But then editors felt that the official title column was redundant. There was already a link to the Grand Prix article, so all the official title column did was name the sponsor (and even then, not all races had sponsors), and it was felt that the sponsor was largely irrelevant to the article's purpose. So the column was cut.
The same logic applies here—what does the entrant column actually add? The official team name? We don't use that name anywhere on a regular basis; even the team-specific articles follow COMMONNAME (for example, the Force India article is called "Force India", not "Sahara Force India Formula One Team"). The column adds flags, but they're largely decorative. And it adds "Formula One Team" a lot, but that's just repetitive.
"It's indefensible!"
What's indefensible is calling every edit you disagree with indefensible, as if it automatically gives you the upper hand. I've outlined an argument based on reason and precedents, and the most you can reply with is "we've always done it that way" and provided a justifucation of questionable relevance. So how about you stop shouting "it's indefensible!" as if it has the power to stop a conversatiom for good, and instead do something constructive, like this: if the inclusion of the entrant column is useful, then what exactly is it useful for? What does the column do that the rest of the article does not?
The only circumstance under which the column would genuinely be useful is if the entrant and the constructor were two different entities. However, that is not the case here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Take for instance the 2016 article. The entry list contains a constructor named MRT. The body of the article however mentions a team called Manor a number of times. Without the entrant column in the entry list, there is no mention of the name Manor in the entry list. Thus the link between the two is severed, creating confusion.Tvx1 17:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
So this is another example of you making decisions based on what's best for another article, then?
It's still a redundant column, and let's be honest, a lazy solution. Tables are a visual representation of the content of the article—prose should always be the primary means of relating content. That column could still be cut and the important content related through prose or a footnote. It's not worth weighing a table down with redundant content when there are better ways of expressing the information when it is needed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I am going to politely ask that you please stop requesting that we actively make this article worse by deleting unique and useful information. Wicka wicka (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you know what is also unique and useful? Jenson Button's middle name—his full name is Jenson Alexander Lyons Button. It's unique, and it's useful, but it's also irrelevant. Why is it so important that we know the full team names? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You will never achieve consensus to implement a change that objectively makes this article worse. Stop wasting your own time. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
This is sincerely inexplicable, and part of me is way too cynical (or maybe optimistic?) to believe that you genuinely think this is a good idea. Are you just suggesting bad ideas to pick fights? Wicka wicka (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, I find it particularly rich that you previously said "Articles are fluid. Just because previous articles do it, that doesn't automatically mean that it will always be done that way," yet below, in your little spat about Vettel's photo being removed, your ONLY justification for including that photo is because every other article has it. Please, god, reconsider the way you approach editing and approach this discussions, because it is NOT working. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

This coming from the guy who immediately characterises any proposed edits he disagrees with as being indefensible?

"in your little spat about Vettel's photo being removed, your ONLY justification for including that photo is because every other article has it"

And if you read that discussion, you would see that I made it pretty clear that when I said every article, I meant every article. It's a practice that is common to the season articles of every major motorsport championship, and thus it's not our place to make a decision like that. It's an issue for WP:MOTOR at the very least, and probably a few others to boot. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It IS indefensible. You are suggesting that we remove the team names from a list of F1 teams on an F1 season page. It's absolutely baffling, it makes no sense from any perspective, and there is no logical way to defend it beyond "ugh we should take this content out because I'm looking for a fight this week." As I've told you: you will NOT achieve consensus for for this change, as it unquestionably makes the page worse and removes information from it. Move on and start planning your next argument. Wicka wicka (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
"You are suggesting that we remove the team names from a list of F1 teams on an F1 season page"
No, I'm suggesting that we remove a redundant column. The team names are still there in the constructor column.
"Move on and start planning your next argument."
I have my doubts that you understand this argument. You just claimed that I wanted to remove the team names, which is not true. So either you didn't read what I posted, didn't understand what I posted, or you deliberately misrepresented it. Neither is a particularly good look for you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Team names and constructor names are objectively different. You want to remove team names. You will do no such thing. Move on. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
"You will do no such thing."

I will continue to edit in a way that I see fit and which I believe is in the interests of the article. I will not, however, pay any attention to anything that you have to say until such time as you can demonstrate respect for other editors. You have repeatedly accused people who disagree with you of behaving in a way that is indefensible as if disagreeing with you is a cardinal sin. Now you have deliberately misrepresented the arguments of other editors to suit your own agenda, and have decided to rule with absolute authority when you have none, and in doing so you have shown that you cannot be trusted to conduct a civil discussion.

If you want to do something to benefit the article, you have two choices: you can lose the attitude and apologise, or you can go somewhere else. If you choose to stay and keep the attitude, every edit you make will be regressive because it will be serving your pride rather than the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Lol, get off your high horse. You've lost this one. Discussion is over. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
PS, stop saying "editors" and "people" as if it's anyone but you. It's just you. No one else is advocating for deleting information from the article. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
"You've lost this one."
The fact that you think of this in terms of winning and losing proves just how unfit you are for editing. I want to make the article the best that it can be. You want to turn consensus-building into a competition.
"No one else is advocating for deleting information from the article."
Deleting content from an article isn't automatically wrong because it involves deleting content. Once, the calendar used to list the race start times, both in GMT and local time. I'm sure that information would have been very useful to some people, but editors felt that it was unnecessary and deleted it. I guess they were terrible people for doing that.
And I would hardly call it "deleting information" given that the information is still in the article. Once again, you deliberately misrepresented what I said. I assume you did it so that you could "win". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing more to be said on this topic. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think what you meant to say is "I have nothing more to say on this topic". Especially since you criticised me for speaking as if I spoke for multiple editors. For you to then do it makes you a hypocrite on top of everything else. If other people want to say something, let them, rather than assuming that you have the right to speak for them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I said what I meant. This matter is settled and the conversation is over. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
So you meant to be a hypocrite, then? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
No. Just trying to explain that your suggested changes have been declined. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about that. I'm more concerned that you think that this is an appropriate way to conduct yourself, as if you blatant disrespect and condescension are somehow virtues. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Respect is earned, not given. Wicka wicka (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Antonio Giovinazzi to replace Wehrlein in Australia

http://www.sauberf1team.com/news/pascal-wehrlein-not-to-start-at-the-australian-grand-prix

Could someone with edit privileges please add this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyofthePriuses (talk • contribs) 01:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done.Tvx1 02:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Should this race be counted as "an entry" for Wehrlein? DH85868993 (talk) 05:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@DH85868993 — in the past, editors have felt that having your name on the FIA entry list is enough to be considered as having taken part in a Grand Prix weekend, even if you never even get into the car, much less drive it. It's justified as being a case of "well, you have to be on the entry list in order to start the race". Personally, I disagree with it, because it means having your name on a piece of paper on Thursday has the same weight as lining up on the grid on Sunday, and it uses some carefully-chosen wording in the articles to get around the loophole, because a Grand Prix is defined as starting with scrutineering rather than the actual race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Whatever we did with Alex Rossi at the 2014 Belgian Grand Prix is most likely the answer. Holdenman05 (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Participating in a free practice session is not the same as participating in the race. The article should not give equal weight to them, and to the casual reader, it is entirely reasonable to assume that any driver listed as taking part in a round took part in the race. No amount of clever wording in the body of the article circumvents it, and nor should the wording be used to work around it—because the simple fact is that appearing on a piece of paper printed on a Thursday is NOT the same as starting the race on Sunday. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Max Chilton was initially slated to start, before being replaced by Rossi as the designated driver for FP2 before the contractual dispute was settled and Chilton returned to full driver duties from FP3 onwards. Rossi is not counted as having entered the 2014 Belgian Grand Prix, so therefore it should be the same for Wehrlein. Holdenman05 (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Except that he is listed as having taken part in the 2014 Formula One season article because he drove in free practice. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

But on his page he is not, which I suppose raises more questions. Holdenman05 (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It's because there's no consistency. The season articles might as well be a law unto themselves. Do you know why the article is called "2017 Formula One season" instead of "2017 Formula 1 World Championship"? It's because the article addresses all Formula One racing, including racing outside the championship, for the given year. Even though there is no racing outside the championship, there is always the possibility of non-championship races. Some editors are so afraid that the current season article might contradict future season articles that they don't want to change the current article to have a proper name despite the fact that the FIA calls it the "World Championship". These are the same editors who consider the FIA to be an inviolate source and refuse to accept sources that contradict them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
This is a highly-relevant comment. There is no consistency across articles and many of them hinge on carefully-chosen wording to justify their content. Is it cyncial? Maybe — but this isn't the first time that we have had a debate about whether having your name on a piece of paper printed on a Thursday is the same as starting the race on Sunday. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Not it's not relevant. It's off-topic. This is discussion is about someone being counted in the rounds column not about the article's title. And on-topic, Wherlein did much more than "having his name on a piece of paper printed on Thursday" during this Grand Prix.Tvx1 21:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Just because you don't like it, that doesn't mean that you just arbitrarily shut it down. My comment puts the Wehrlein situation in its wider context—that there is no internal consistency within articles. You can't argue that it's off-topic and then subsequently make this comment:
"It probably should be WD in all those cases."
This shows that there is no internal consistency!
"Wherlein did much more than "having his name on a piece of paper printed on Thursday" during this Grand Prix"
But he's still not taking part in the race itself. We should not be inferring that what Wehrlein did has the same weight as what Ericsson is doing. As was said during the Sky broadcast—quoting the regulations, I might add—"an Event, event with a capital E, consists of final practice, qualifying and the race". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No, he is listed as having been entered. The rounds column lists entries. The results tables and the prose expain what happened afterwards. They clearly show he didn't take part in the race so there is no scope for misassumption.Tvx1 10:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

This is precisely what I meant by clever wording. It's not technically wrong, so who cares if the reader has to jump through hoops to understand it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
They don't have to. The different tables complement each other perfectly to tell the tale. There is footnote explaining the situation. The driver changes section gives even more information and the season report will as well once it starts being written. You also really to need leave this cynical off-topic remarks behind as well. We had a very long and tedious discussion about this and the consensus was to count all drivers entered for a Grand Prix in the rounds column. This was reaffirmed to you here in answer to your continuous fight about this. That was one and half year ago and I'm really sad to see you still fail to understand that the rounds column does NOT relate to the races but to the entries. Even before the aforementioned discussion, we NEVER used races started as the discriminator whether or not to count a driver in the rounds column. For instance 1990 Formula One season counts Bertrand Gachot for all races despite not having started any. Similarly, Claudio Langes is listed for 14, Bruno Giacomelli for 12 and Stefan Johansson and Gary Brabham for 2 races despite non of them having started any. In the 2016 article, Kvyat, Vettel, Palmer, Grosjean are all counted for races they didn't start. Races started is not what's being counted in that column. Why do you think we even have results as DNPQ, DNQ or DNS in the first place?Tvx1 12:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

In the past drivers who withdrew after practice, or drivers who only took part in pactice (excluding Friday drivers) were listed as Practiced only. For some reason this has been altered (to withdrawn) in some of the season standings, but this is still the case on all the driver's profiles. Eddie Irvine Sergio Pérez. For the sake of consistency I think we should make sure that all the pages state the same. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It probably should be WD in all those cases.Tvx1 21:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I think there is a minimal difference between PO and WD (after practice) and that would be the "intended original purpose": A driver that PO it was their original plan to "only practice". Instead, a Driver who WD, is someone who originally was going to take part in the race (and is included in the Entry List) but at one moment, Withdrew from the race (before the practice, after the practice or after the Qualify). MNSZ (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
No, that's not right. Drivers who enter only for free practice don't get listed with the race drivers but in their own Free Practice Drivers column and don't get a result in the result matrices.Tvx1 22:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Now I'm seeing that he is featured as WD also for the Chinese GP, but he wasn't entered (we could say he withdrew, but that was before the event). I think he should not be listed as having competed at all (a blank space instead of a "WD").MNSZ (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
He was entered, he drove in free practice and withdrew during the event and not before it. Stating he did no participate would be factually incorrect.Tvx1 19:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
You are showing me the Australian GP Entry List, but I'm talking about the Chinese GP (Round 2). At the moment of my message, it was listed as WD in the result Matrices. Now it's been modified. MNSZ (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah indeed. He should not have been there for China. He never entered.Tvx1 23:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Chase Carey

I thought Chase Carey was Bernie Ecclestone's successor but he isn't mentioned. Can someone please explain? Gmackematix (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the 2017 season. The sportive aspect. Who finishes where in the championships and how. Not about the owners of the sport. The management information is mentioned in those persons' articles and on the article on the Formula One Group.Tvx1 14:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Championship leader (after 2 races)

Is there a source on Vettel's win being first mattering in who leads the championship? The sporting regulations just say that the number of wins matter, and make no mention on the order of wins. Considering Formula1.com and FIA.com have different leaders, I can't see how we can say for sure that one is ahead of the other without a reliable source saying so. OZOO 21:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Normally, in the case of tieing of points, tiebraker are first the number of victories, then the second ranks in the race, then the third ranks, etc. If the race positions are the same, the number of poles count next. Hamilton has 2 poles, Vettel none. -> Hamilton is currently the leader of the championship. --Mark McWire (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The official results posted at the end of the race credit Vettel as the current championship leader. End of story. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, I have been following the sport for as long as I can remember, and I cannot recall a single instance of the number of pole positions bring used to settle a championship (or championship lead). In the event of a tie, the driver with the most outright wins is considered the championship leader; if two (or more) drivers have an equal number of wins, the first driver to have won a race is the winner. Using pole positions sounds like OR to get the article to name Hamilton as the leader. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
If two or more driver have the same amount of wins, then the driver with the most second places are the champion. If all driver have the same amount of second places, then the driver with the most third places are the champion. And so on. -> http://www.fia.com/file/54256/download/18381?token=lMCfyJzf

If two or more constructors or drivers finish the season with the same number of points, the higher place in the Championship (in either case) shall be awarded to:

a) The holder of the greatest number of first places.

b) If the number of first places is the same, the holder of the greatest number of second places.

c) If the number of second places is the same, the holder of the greatest number of third places and so on until a winner emerges.

d) If this procedure fails to produce a result, the FIA will nominate the winner according to such criteria as it thinks fit.

--Mark McWire (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Is "I know the sport for years" not also OR? Source is necessary, especially as we have conflicting information. That is the very definition of citation needed. The359 (Talk) 01:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm simply stating that I have racked my brains and I cannot think of a single instance where pole positions have been used to decide championship positions. I'm happy to be proven wrong if it's in the regulations and has simply never been used until now; I'm merely sceptical about the existence of said rule. The closest that I can find is the aforementioned "the FIA will nominate the winner according to such criteria as it sees fit", but that's a far cry from "the FIA will nominate the winner based on the number of pole positions" or really anything to do with qualifying—which is the justification that @Mark McWire put forward:
"If the race positions are the same, the number of poles count next. Hamilton has 2 poles, Vettel none. -> Hamilton is currently the leader of the championship"
Where is the source for that? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
There is not a source for that, but your belief that if drivers are tied on wins, they go to who got the win first is incorrect, it then goes to whomever had more 2nd place finishes. We clearly need a source stating either the rules or the official standings. The359 (Talk) 04:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that if it is tied on wins, they go to second placings; if they're tied on seconds, they go to third placings, and so on and so forth until they reach the point of diminishing returns and use "such criteria as they see fit". Clearly, we're at that point, but I have never heard of pole positions being used as that criteria. It is THEN that they would consider who scored their victories and when. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there a source for when the victories were scored being the decider? OZOO 07:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
It's always done when two drivers have zero points—if two drivers finish 12th in two races, then the second driver to do it must either score another 12th place to take the championship position, or score an 11th place or better. I see no reason why that same system isn't being applied here.
Right now, we have two contradictory sources of equal validity. The only thing both agree on is that there is only one leader, and precedent puts Vettel in front. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I repeat the question. Where is the source that says that the order is decided by order of wins? Where is the source that says it is not valid to list Hamilton and Vettel equally as championship leaders? OZOO 09:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
You have already posted both of them. We have two sources, which are equally valid as sources. One says Vettel is the leader; the other, Hamilton. The one thing that they have in common is that they both say that there is only one championship leader. We can't say that they're joint leaders because it's not supported by either source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
You are right. I have probably confused this with the rules of NASCAR and Indycar. If the rankings are the same, the qualification placements will then be used in both of this racing series. The FIA obviously does not have this rule. --Mark McWire (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking at third party sources, there is some confusion over the current standings. The BBC and Motorsport.com, show Vettel first, in line with F1.com. The standings from the FIA website with Hamilton shown in the lead are followed by The Telegraph, Sky Sports, Channel 4 (the other British broadcaster), NBC Sports, and quite a few others.

The third way is to show a tie, which we were using yesterday, and that is used by Autosport, Eurosport and ESPN. This I believe is the correct approach, as if we read the actual regulations:

7.2 If two or more constructors or drivers finish the season with the same number of points, the higher place in the Championship (in either case) shall be awarded to:

They state that a tie is only broken at the end of a season, and then by a criteria decided by the FIA. There is no mention of qualifying performances, or which driver scored a victory first; the FIA might use either, but if they don't tell us, we can't assume. There is also no provision about breaking a tie mid-season, so the implication is as things stand right now, Hamilton and Vettel are tied. This also means Palmer and Vandoorne are tied, although I have a feeling no one would care if the question was only over 16th place. QueenCake (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

With no apparent consensus amongst the reliable sources, we need to state just that in the article and leave the readers to draw their own conclusions. Anything else would fail WP:NPOV. -- de Facto (talk). 18:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I will also note that the FIA are contradicting themselves here they have Hamilton on top, but here they have the opposite. Regarding third-party sources, GPUpdate and StatsF1] put Vettel on top as well. I think DeFacto raised a fair point, but I can't see how we could actually implement it. After all, we have to put something in the first two rows of the standings' table.Tvx1 21:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1: the FIA contradiction highlights the lack of consensus, even within the FIA. We cannot choose one driver over the other so need to treat both as equals. That means two photos (or none), in the lead and clear wording of the situation. As for the standings table; we could simply merge the top two "Pos" and "Points" cells, putting "1/2" for Pos and "43" for Points, and put the drivers in alphabetical order (or some other agreed order recognised as randomly neutral). The current content very definitely defies WP:NPOV. -- de Facto (talk). 06:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I remember that we used to show a tie for drivers in lower places or I'm confusing it with something else? If I'm right then we should do what was always done. Otherwise, Vettel should be on top as he was the first driver to win it this year. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with showing a tie with the drivers' names sorted alphabetically (i.e. Hamilton first). This is the basically the same way the bottom of the standings works, among the drivers who haven't been classified in any races. Also, please stop asking for sources. There is only one source that matters (the official FIA regulations), you've already posted it, and it does not clarify tiebreaking procedures - because they don't exist. They'd have to figure something out if a tie does occur. We have to figure something out here. Wicka wicka (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Stop me if this is too radical an idea, but how about we stop over-thinking things? One way or another, this issue won't be an issue at all in five days. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, Vettel and Hamilton could both retire and still be tied at the top of the table... ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, we could just leave it as-is, I'm fine with that. Regardless, I just want to be clear that there's no perfect solution, because even the FIA doesn't have a way of separating the two at present. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
{u|Prisonermonkeys}}, that is preferable, but I would point out it was you who changed the table in the first place... QueenCake (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I simply went by the source that I had. Also, I have seen this debate play out elsewhere on the internet, and the one thing that people arguing that Hamilton is the leader have in common is that they're Hamilton fans. When the article was suddenly filled with editors who have had little or nothing to do with the article until now, all claiming that Hamilton is the leader, my scepticism reflex was triggered. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

A further discussion of this subject is occurring at the F1 WikiProject discussion page – Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Drivers' standings after the 2017 Chinese GP – and all contributions are invited. Regards, EdChem (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2017

"Cameras will no longer be permitted to be mounted on stalks, located on the nose of the car.[67]"

Remove the comma, it makes no sense. 78.0.192.253 (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Season report

Are we not doing this for 2017? I'm focusing my attentions on other articles this year, so I'm not really up for it, but it seems like a curious omission to make. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you going to do this every year? You made the exact same complaint around the same time last year. We're barely four races into the season, we don't have much to write an extensive season report from yet. With the championships swinging back and forth its difficult to write with a long term view too. Last year we didn't have much in the season report around this time either, yet by the end of the season we had our extensive report. This year's one will certainly come at some point. There is no rush and certainly no deadline.Tvx1 01:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I just remember a lot being made of the importance of a season report, but nobody actually writing anything. I'm focusing on other articles, so I won't be doing it this year. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Verstappen rule

@Prisonermonkeys: and Tvx1 - before we stray into WP:EW territory, the source explicitly names it as the "Max Verstappen rule", so the use of the term "Verstappen rule" is correct. It is also referred to as such by various F1 commentators, such as Martin Brundle of Sky Sports F1. Whether or not the term is "tabloid" is neither here nor there. The term is in common use. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we have to copy them litterally. Everyone can understand the bullet point without the fancy name. We're an encyclopedia not a news site. Moreover, the link with Verstappen is mentioned in that bullet point even without the fancy name.Tvx1 15:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
That seems more like a defence of Verstappen than a reason not to include it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Season tables - colour scheme query

Hello. I'm relatively new here but made a curious discovery when looking at the season tables couple of days ago. In the drivers' and consructors' championship standings; Did not start (DNS) and Race cancelled (C) are keyed as White, but Did not practice (DNP), Excluded (EX), Did not arrive (DNA), Withdrawn (WD) are keyed as blank. Now to my eyes there is barely any difference between the two colours and if there was an intended categorical difference it is not tangible to be made out in the busy tables, the only way of easily knowing there is in fact a difference is to rigorously inspect the key. So I wondered if it might be better to:

- 1) Collapse them all to either the White or Blank classification

or if is deemed sufficient difference exists between the two classifications

- 2) Choose a more distinct colour contrast, so the distinction can be thus made

Interestingly still, 'Not classified, retired (Ret)' belongs to its own category.

And shouldn't 'Red' be called 'Pink' because it does not resemble Red to me. Maybe this scheme has been used for many years, but the current key colouring is at best, moderately indistinct. I think a simple change could make it much more consistent and useful in an encyclopedia. Maybe this is not a significant problem, but to me, at very least: the current use of White and Blank for separate categories is completely useless. MatthewJAFields (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Grand Prix section

Why when clicking on the 2017 Spanish Grand Prix and subsequents it redirects to the 2017 Formula One Season?--RafaelS1979 (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Because these articles don't exist yet.Tvx1 14:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it they redirect to the 2017 season. I think that someone has decided not to write individual articles on each grand prix starting from Spain 2017.--RafaelS1979 (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, they redirect because the articles do not exist yet. It's to curb the creation of articles for events that are too far in the future that will be mostly blank. The359 (Talk) 18:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Just a heads up that the article has now been created by someone and the redirect lifted. Perhaps we should be aiming to get the next race article up at least a weekend or two in advance. MatthewJAFields (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing stopping you from doing it yourselves. Wikipedia is built on community contributions, and we all had to start somewhere. Sometimes the best way to learn is to get your hands dirty. So if you see something that needs doing, be bold and do it. Sure, sometimes your changes will be reverted or changed further—but that's all part of the process. If you learn why your changes were reverted or edited further and use that to inform your future editing practices, you can make a real contribution. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

WCC Standings Incorrect

The WDC standings have KMag listed as having finished the Russian GP in 13th place, but the WCC standings list him has having finished 12th. I clicked edit, but I don't know how to fix this.Real tlhingan (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

After Barcelona, the points for Toro Rosso and Sauber need to be corrected. The table reflects SAI and WEH correctly after the 5 second penalty, but the points are off by 2 for their teams RobiBuecheler (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. DH85868993 (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn;t Eriksson be above Stroll, as he's had a 15th, and Stroll has a 16th? Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. DH85868993 (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Standings

For the Spanish GP, Wehrlein incurred a 5 second post-race penalty and was classified 8th, being Sainz. The standings are reflecting the race finish order, not the final classification.Real tlhingan (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Button race number source

I have a question regarding McLaren and the constructors standings table. Jenson Button, who raced with number 22 from 2014-16, will be participating in the Monaco Grand Prix on the 28th of May. I notice that there is a third "sub-row" as I call it in the constructor's standings for him in the McLaren row already. That's fine, but it lists his car number as 66, not the 22 that he raced with in 2014-16. I would be very interested to see the source for that information, because I have seen nothing from official sources that Jenson Button will in fact be driving with 66 on the nose of his car instead of 22. If there is a legitimate source that does confirm this, that's perfectly ok. I just haven't seen anything about it. Any clarity on this would be greatly appreciated. Adamlast1 (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it. It didn't make sense and no one should be in the results tables unless they have been entered for a Grand Prix.Tvx1 17:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Page Protection

The kids must be out of school, there's been A LOT of vandalism this passed day or so. We need page protection so that edits can only be made by registered users.Real tlhingan (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:RPP.Tvx1 18:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Done Real tlhingan (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Button in "signed" drivers table

Surely Button shouldn't be listed on the drivers table until he is actually entered for the Monaco race weekend? It was my understanding that this was the case? Surely the note in the "mid-season changes" section should suffice until such time as the FIA have released their entry list which is not normally until a week before the race weekend. Anyway, ignore me if I'm wrong. MetalDylan (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Looking at the edits during the last week or so it tends to create confusion. Before the season starts we have a list of signed drivers and we list them once a contract is announced. Once the rounds column is added however it becomes a list of entries and we should really only lust those who have been entered for a Grand Prix. Maybe we should tweak the wording above the table to reflect that.Tvx1 15:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This is not crystal balling, even if we know that there is the slimmest of chances that things could change and we'd have to alter the chart, the fact of the matter is that as of this moment we know that this event is planned for the future. Grands Prix have yet to happen as well, and could be cancelled, but we don't list the calendar on a race by race basis. The359 (Talk) 16:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a claim here that this would be crystalballing. His round number is filled in after all. It's just that the table is presented as list of entries and Jenson Button is not an entry during this season (yet). The prose explains Button's planned entry well enough as it is.Tvx1 16:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
His round number shouldn't be filled in, but he should be listed on the chart. He is signed and intended to drive. The359 (Talk) 17:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
But the table is concerned about that anymore it. It literally appears to our readers as if it shows who has been entered and who hasn't.Tvx1 17:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The table to me shows who will drive for which team in 2017, and what rounds they have participated in. The359 (Talk) 23:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@The359 — at the risk of going down completely the wrong avenue, the definition of "participation" is fuzzy. Here we've got Button in the table because he's under contract, but Wehrlein is in the table for Melbourne despite only practicing, and everybody else has raced. The threshold for inclusion in the table is appearing on the entry list on the Thursday before the race, although I think a far more practical definition of "participation" is that they attempted to qualify. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

In which case Button shouldn't be listed (yet).Tvx1 02:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
That implies that the function of the driver table changed at some point, but it's unclear when or how its function changed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
That's why I suuggested earlier to update the wording above the table to reflect that. If it states that it list entered drivers, everyone knows it lists entries.Tvx1 12:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion

List drivers by the rounds they have competed in, with those they as scheduled to compete in in brackets. Thus the entry for Button at the minute would just read (6), Wehrlein would read 1, 3 (4-20). Mjroots (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

No, that would create even more confusion.Tvx1 15:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Going back to @Prisonermonkeys, the threshold for having your name listed in the chart is having a contract with the team to be a racing driver. The threshold for having a number listed in the rounds column is an entirely separate issue. The359 (Talk) 17:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
And MetalDylan and myself are proposing to change that treshold for having your name listed in the chart to being entered for a Grand Prix. The current treshold clearly creates confusion. Only today, the table information for Button was changed and reverted twice.Tvx1 18:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not really sure how people are confused. Really, the confusion is over how we enter races in the Rounds column, not over whose names are listed on the chart. People want to add Monaco without understanding our requirement that they be on an entry list first. So the problem isn't Button being there, it's that we have him listed as TBA. Surely a warning next to the TBA would help fix some of the problem. The359 (Talk) 20:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
But they wouldn't be if Button simply weren't there. His presence is the source of confusion. They see him in the table so they think they should fill in the round for which he obviously is listed there. That's why I suggest we have a table which is introduced as one which list drivers who have been entered for a Grand Prix and which obviously only lists those drivers. The prose would nevertheless contain the details on Button's Monaco plan. Omitting him from the table does not private the information from our readers. So, I really can't see why it's so vital to list him in the table before he is entered for a GP.Tvx1 11:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
We don't list third/reserve drivers, period. If one enters a race weekend, then we list them. If not then they have no place there. Why is it so complicated? MetalDylan (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
That's essentially what I feel as well.Tvx1 15:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Removing Button is equally a source of confusion, because I know he has been added and removed repeatedly. Making this change to placate users who are confused does not improve the factual nature of the chart. Button is a driver for McLaren, he should be listed as such. The359 (Talk) 18:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Button is as much a driver for McLaren as Di Resta is for Williams. They are test drivers. They are not listed on the WDC therefore they don't belong in the table as they are not "currently taking part in the 2017 Formula One World Championship" as stipulated by the table description. I have added a clarifying note next to Alonso and a comment in the table code. That should be the end of it until the Monaco entry list is released. MetalDylan (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
That is a falsehood and you know it. Button is the named, designated driver for McLaren at Monaco. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't make it untrue. Listing in the WDC has no bearing as that is in the past. The word "currently" can also be easily changed. The text is just as adaptable as the chart. The359 (Talk) 19:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Erm, no. Button has not been designated a race driver for Monaco. In fact no one has been yet. That's why the number 6 doesn't appear in the rounds column yet. Button is merely contracted right now, but we can't know what will happen in the future. In fact, Alonso isn't qualified for the Indianapolis 500 yet. I have tweaked the wording above the table so that it actually matches what the table intends to show. This means it now functions in the same way as similar tables on other motorsports articles.Tvx1 12:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
At this point, we're twisting and turning through so many loopholes with the wording that large parts of the article are quickly becoming meaningless. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
According to McLaren, "Stoffel and Jenson confirmed for the 2017 Monaco Grand Prix". RobiBuecheler (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
We only go by the entry lists.Tvx1 18:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Entry lists confirm a driver is present for the sake of the Rounds column. Teams confirm their drivers. McLaren has announced a driver and it is sourcable. The359 (Talk) 00:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion is 2-fold, and quite simple:

  1. First, let's stop inventing rules whose intent is to duplicate other rules. This wiki page is about F1, let's use F1's rules. Any driver that participates in any single session of a GP weekend has participated in that GP weekend and should be listed in the "drivers" section. This includes "3rd car Friday morning practice only" drivers from years gone by, and excludes reserve drivers that accompany the race team "just in case."
  2. Second, let's stop trying to predict the future, and let's keep wishful thinking out of this. Yes, we've all been told Button will take Alonso's seat for Monaco. Let's wait until Button sits in the car on the track before adding him, just like nobody was 100% sure exactly which race Werhlein would return. Lots of things could happen in the next 10 days.
  • JB could die in a plain crash
  • JB could find he's not in shape to handle the new F1 cars, as Werhlein did
  • Alonso could back out of the Indy 500 and race the Monaco GP
  • The Monaco GP could be cancelled last minute for whatever reason
  • McLaren, who still don't have a title sponsor, could decide to stay home, or worse, fold
  • Maybe Honda will forbid McLaren to run their engine, as Michelin did with their tires at Indy in 2005
  • aliens could beam down, take over, and kill everybody, making the entire Monaco GP a moot point

Real tlhingan (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Or Button could drive the car in Monaco. If we're not predicting the future, then we just have the present to go off of. And the present says McLaren has signed Button to drive. The359 (Talk) 05:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, he has been announced by McLaren over a month ago already. But he hasn't participated in any rounds yet. We should wait until either:
  • The FIA entry list is published or
  • He actually sits in the car on the track

We should not list him before this.Real tlhingan (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

FIA doesn't designate drivers, McLaren does. McLaren has designated a driver. This is a fact that can be reliably sourced. The359 (Talk) 07:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Fine, can you a provide a link to the entry list confirming that Button and Vandoorne were designated for Monaco?Tvx1 08:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, why are we using an entry list to list Button? Entry list is for the Rounds column. Teams designate their drivers, not the FIA. Lacking one source does not magically negate an existing reliable source. The359 (Talk) 08:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Yet they have to designate them with the FIA. No-one has been designated to be a race driver for Monaco yet. Hence why no number 6 appears yet in the rounds column. There's simply no value in adding someone for whom we cannot put anything in the rounds column. Worse still, as we have seen before it creates confusion and unwanted editing. Since we removed Button from the table the editing regarding him has ceased completely. The prose provides the information on Button's plans. That's sufficient coverage at the moment.Tvx1 09:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Not publishing an entry list does not somehow magically mean that McLaren has not informed the FIA of their drivers. Hinging everything on the rounds column is asinine, as is the claim that the prose somehow only allows past drivers to be listed (despite the fact that entry lists appear before the event has occured...).
As an example, in 2005 Red Bull announced that Christian Klien and Vitantonio Liuzzi would share a seat in their car. Which specific races each would participate in was not divulged by Red Bull, other than that both drivers would get at least three races. By your logic, we couldn't list either driver until the first round of the season, and only then could we add one of them. Liuzzi would not have been listed until around this time of year.
We have an undisputed reputable source saying Button will be a driver for McLaren, we have a contract (which has always been our justification in adding drivers to the chart). Making up rules to somehow exclude something with reputable sources simply for the sake of a column of rounds is against the spirit of Wikipedia. And people have added Button back to the article, and the article has also been locked out for IP editors, so that's hardly a point. The359 (Talk) 18:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
There's a difference between drivers signed for the season and mid-season changes. Drivers signed for the season are fully expected to race, whereas mid-season changes, whether by contract or by injury or by firing, are more of a fluky thing. That's why we need to tread carefully on the later, wiki isn't about being the first to break the news, it's about documenting happenings for posterity.Real tlhingan (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the absence of an entry lists means exactly that they haven't nominated their drivers for Monaco with the FIA yet. In fact, no team has. There are many reason why any driver could be prevented from entering for the Monaco Grand Prix next week. There is a good reason why the FIA only allows entries to be registered the day before a grand prix weekend starts. In the Red Bull example, Klien was listed on the season entry list, so he could have been very much included in the table before the start in the season. Liuzzi, however, should indeed not have been included in the table until he was actually entered for a race. The reason why having different conditions for listing someone in the table and for adding a number in their rounds column is a very bad idea is because it creates confusion. This has been proven by the high level of editing when Button was included. That editing has ceased almost entirely since his removal. And no the page is not protected at all. Adding someone with a TBA in the rounds column adds noting valuable to the table. Sure, Button has a contract to drive, but that is perfectly dealt with in the prose. Since the start of the season, there has been nothing in the article which could make our readers think the table would list signed drivers. It was originally introduced as the table of drivers taking part in the season and has recently been tweaked to drivers entered for a GP. Neither of those descriptions currently applies to Button, so no he should not be present in the table.Tvx1 20:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Vettel picture

Surely it would be more fitting for the picture of Vettel to be the same one as on his page? I think it makes more sense to have him in some kind of Ferrari gear.

Although, he might lead the championship by the end of this weekend, so his picture may soon be gone anyway. MartianDuk (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

We generally like to have the most-recent photo that clearly shows his face. While his article has him in Ferrari colours, this image is a better shot of his face. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

F1 car modifications following Billy Monger's accident

Apparently some F1 cars were modified following Billy Monger's F4 accident at Donington. Worth mentioning in the article? Mjroots (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on 2017 Formula One season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2017

Hi. I want to make Persian (فارسی) version of this page. Sajad.Za (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Test drivers in season articles

A few months ago, I put forward a proposal that season articles should be renamed as their content only reflected the championship. The proposal was rejected on the grounds that the articles addressed everything that happened in the season, even if the only racing was the World Championship.

Overnight, I added all of the drivers who took part in the post-Hungary test, but @Tvx1 has since reverted them. My case for including them is as follows:

  1. The test is sanctioned by the FIA. The rules introduced a few years ago designed to crack down on illegal testing classified cars as "current" or "historic". Using current cars requires FIA approval.
  2. The teams used the test to develop new parts, just as they did with pre-season testing. This was not an event for show by any means. Even if the teams used rookie drivers, that was an initiative set up by the FIA to encourage participation.
  3. We already include details of FP1 drivers in articles, even if FP1 is not competitive the way qualifying or a race is. Test drivers are no different—they take place in FIA-approved sessions outside competition.
  4. We have previoisly included details of testing in the prose of articles.
  5. Articles of drivers involved (for example, Lando Norris) contain details of their taking part.

Therefore, I think we can conclude that test sessions constitute part of the wider season, and thus drivers who took part should be included in the article. If not, then the article is not a "season" article and should be moved as it only focuses on the events of the championship. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems like your edits were quite POINTy then. May propose that a discussion on this subject on is initiated on WT:F1. This issue affects multiple articles, so it's better discuss this at project level.Tvx1 10:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Tvx1 — not POINTy at all. We've defined the scope of the article, but the content does not sustain it. So do we redefine the scope or the content? Given the response a few months ago, I'd say redefining the content is more likely. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Regardless, we should not be discussing this here. This affects multiple article, so it's better to discuss this at the project. We're likely to get more input there as well.Tvx1 12:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Toro Rosso's 10th Place at Spa

In the Constructors' Standings, Toro Rosso's 10th place is shaded blue (no points), it should be shaded green (non-podium points). Real tlhingan (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

So change it. It's an obvious error.Tvx1 23:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Don't have access. Real tlhingan (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
It has now been fixed. DH85868993 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Sainz in Belgium

Hi!

I just noticed that Carlos Sainz's tenth place should be green and not blue. Regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.182.196.165 (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It has now been fixed. DH85868993 (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2017

Lewistoyyo9675934 (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2017

In the Android mobile app this reference/link shows up as not found.

If the link is long pressed & open in a new tab is selected then the page loads properly.

Pictured is the W08 EQ Power+, the car entered by the team in 2017.]]

I'm not a wiki guru so I cannot propose a solution. This may be a bug in the formatting when it comes to the mobile app. Hometheatercalibrator (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: It's the + in the article title that is most likely throwing it off. Your app is probably trying to interpret it as a URL symbol and not part of the article. I replaced it with URL encoding so it should work for now. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Mercedes constructor points

Hello, I just noticed mercedes's constructor points in the championship should amount to 475, and not 435. EDIT: Actually I just noticed that no constructors' total points have been updated.

LakeIshikawa (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done: The transcluded template has already been updated, you'll need to purge the page to see the changes. Bbb2007 (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

World map

The map of the 2017 championship is incorrect because of Crimea. According to international law, Crimea is a part of Ukraine. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262

Please change an image to this file, edited by me previously - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Formula_1_all_over_the_world-2017_-_2.svg

--Unsigned comment above left by: Vaper (talk|contribs)

Note: This is referring to the image authored by Cherkash on Wikimedia Commons. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The above-mentioned UN resolution is non-binding and is thus far from representing "international law" as suggested by the single-purpose account (WP:SPA) above. So there is no reason to engage in any dispute here, unless the goal is to discuss controversial subjects in international politics. But since the subject of F1 and of distribution of the Grands Prix around the world is far from international politics, the map simply represents the de-facto status of the territories as it currently stands. The issue raised is a non-issue in the context of the subject this map represents, and this in no way detracts from the main purpose of the map. So apart from engaging in WP:ADVOCACY by the WP:SPA Vaper (talk|contribs), there is no other reason to change the map as it currently stands. cherkash (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2017

Hi there,

Wouldn't it be appropriate to add the free practice drivers from Hungary to make the page as precise as possible?

Source: [1]

Keep up the good work! High-five from Denmark Kasper 217.61.216.164 (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. That source details testing which took place after the Hungarian Grand Prix, not free practice. There is a consensus not to add test drivers in the season articles.Tvx1 12:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Giovinazzi driving for Sauber is mid-season change?

Just noticed that Giovinazzi driving for sauber is included in the driver changes section but is this not *technically* a mid-season change as Wehrlein took part in FP1 and is not part of the permanent driver line-up? Just wanted to get a consensus before making the edit. 83.231.221.26 (talk) 07:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree with that and don't see any reason why this can't be changed. MetalDylan (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 Done: MetalDylan (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I would not call it a mid-season change at all—especially since it hinges on a technicality that is not immediately obvious to the reader. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The season started with Wehrlein driving for Sauber in the first practice session, I would propose that the wording should be altered to reflect that as to make it clearer to the reader, for example;

Pascal Wehrlein, who moved from MRT to replace Felipe Nasr at Sauber,[42] withdrew from the opening rounds of the championship as a precaution after an injury at the Race of Champions interrupted his training regime, prompting concerns that he would not be able to cope with the greater physical demands placed on the drivers by the 2017 generation of cars. As such, 2016 GP2 Series runner-up Antonio Giovinazzi drove for Sauber from the second practice of the opening round in Australia.[16][41] Wehrlein returned to competition at the third race, the Bahrain Grand Prix, with Giovinazzi resuming testing and reserve driving duties.[43]

Also stating its not "at all" a mid-season change is ridiculous, the facts are plain to see. MetalDylan (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys in fact Wehrlein took part in the entire Friday sessions! MetalDylan (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
It’s not a mid-season change though. It’s an in-season change at best.Tvx1 15:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@MetalDylan

"in fact Wehrlein took part in the entire Friday sessions!"

But the wording of the article doesn't address that at all. You're relying on the reader to make a connection based on a premise is not clearly stated. You cannot simply copy and paste one part of an article into another without making changes to it and expect that there are no issues when the sections you are taking that content from and are adding it to deal with completely different things. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I have split the existing text and included in both sections as in reality it contained two stories. I think the wording now is clear to the reader of what happened. MetalDylan (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's really appropriate for an article like this to be discussing which teams were considering a particular driver, simply because the concept of "considering" is vague. Wehrlein's name could have been shot down thirty seconds after it was mentioned or thirty second before he signed the contract, and "considering" would apply equally in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Gasly

@WikiEditorAU: and Prisonermonkeys - there isn't an edit war about to break out, is there? Gasly is contracted, but it is referenced elsewhere in the article that Kvyat will race in USA. Mjroots (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It's already being discussed above at Talk:2017 FIA Formula One World Championship#Order of Toro Rosso drivers. Like I said there, we should just wait for the US GP and see what happens. It's 7 days til practice after all, and they'll name their drivers before that. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Constructor Standings

Something's not lined up properly in the points column. I don't have access to fix it.Real tlhingan (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone added a line for Hartley, but it was undone as being premature. When it was undone, not all of the markup was changed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Chart showing race-by-race competition

The below chart illustrates the (ongoing) cumulative points of championship contenders. It may supplement results by providing a clear visual representation through the races of the season.

  • 1. Would this be a useful addition to a (ongoing) current season's page?
  • 2. In the completed season articles, it has been in a separate sub-heading under 'Results and standings > Competition for the 2007 Drivers World Championship'. For a (ongoing) current season, should it go under a separate sub-heading, or sit inside the 'Results and standings > World Drivers' Championship standings' sub-section?

It would be great to hear any opinions before making or not making changes. Bamkin (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Competition for 2017 World Championship
Chart illustrating the cumulative point totals of championship contenders Lewis Hamilton, Sebastian Vettel and Valtteri Bottas through the 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship season race-by-race.
It's a mess. For one, the colours are impossible to discern. The blue is far too light, and the colours of the Mercedes drivers too similar to discern in such a small image. Plus, you've got black text on a dark grey background.
More importantly, by only presenting three drivers, you're only selectively representing the championship. Vettel, Bottas and Hamilton are the only three drivers in mathematical contention now, but there are twenty-one other drivers out there scoring points.
In short, I find the entire thing to be unnecessary. We'd achieve more by changing the positions in the matrix cells to points. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for concise opinion on the relevance of presenting the competition for the WC. I suppose I had considered competition for the top place(s) to be a constitute part of the season. Indeed, the article begins with a photo of the championship leader, rather than all drivers; and the three drivers leading the championship are named in the article introduction but no other drivers. Regardless, I will not add unless there are more opinions to the contrary.
As an aside, colours and size are very easily changed by any editor! The question of whether a representation of the cumulative points or championship standings through time is helpful enough to use space in the article is probably the important one. Bamkin (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


"the article begins with a photo of the championship leader, rather than all drivers"
True, but the focus of the championship is to declare a champion. Thus, the current championship leader (and eventually the champion) is a natural fit.
"the three drivers leading the championship are named in the article introduction but no other driver"
There are only three places on the podium, and the lead is meant to summarise the article's contents. You're positioning this graph in the results section which details everyone's performances.
"colours and size are very easily changed by any editor"
Name for me twenty-four individual colours bearing in mind that they need to be distinct enough that colour-blind people (a very common condition) could distinguish between them.
"The question of whether a representation of the cumulative points or championship standings through time is helpful enough to use space in the article is probably the important one"
Then take it to WP:F1. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


Good to see everybody agrees that one focus of the season is to compete for the championship.
I did not expect such a strong and wide-ranging reaction for a suggestion on the talk page. Nonetheless, I understand your main point to suggest that the results and standings section specifically should represent all drivers equally.
More broadly, if I understand correctly, changes to the standard layout are suggested at the Wikiproject page. I am not yet familiar with the WP-F1 processes, so will leave this here for anybody to either follow up if interested in a representation of cumulative points or standings at through the season, or leave to be archived. Bamkin (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:F1 is a WikiProject. It's a centralised hub for managing articles with a similar subject matter; in this case, Formula 1. WP:F1 oversees championship and race articles, teams, drivers, cars, circuits, records and everything else. WT:F1 is the talk page for project-wide discussions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2017

81.36.56.146 (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Season Report arguably needed for ITN (In The News)

At ITN (Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Formula_One) I've said:

  • Weak oppose for now. Article quality seems fine to me, except that unfortunately it seemingly still doesn't meet nominator Modest Genius's own stated quality requirement above: "The 2016 article had an extensive 'season report' section. At least a couple of paragraphs of prose summary will be required before this is postable." (Incidentally, there are also good season reports for 2015 and 2014, and, for all I know, quite likely for earlier seasons as well).

Apart from that there's currently one support, and the nominator's own comment. So it seems quite likely that the above-mentioned couple of paragraphs are all that's needed to get it posted. I don't feel competent to add them myself, but surely some of the editors round here are capable of doing that. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

But is it really in the news? Hamilton won the championship a month ago. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
See Modest Genius's reply to that point at ITN, where he says the question is irrelevant per ITN/R, and then you can make up your own mind either way. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Formula_One_World_Championship/Archive_4&oldid=1142435018"