Talk:2019 Formula One World Championship/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

George Russell

Hi, I've recently had to remove George Russell's driver number from the page a few times as it keeps being added. I've added a comment in the source to remind users not to do this but I want to clarify that it hasn't been announced that he will/won't keep his current number from other FIA series. What's everyone's thoughts? RhinosF1 (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that driver number confirmations do not generate much news at all but we should keep it TBA until *somebody reliable* says something about it, then change to "confirmed" number. See, this is what I generally hate about Wikipedia: there's too much gray area. Admanny (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not really newsworthy. Aside from the headline "Driver X to use Number Y", what would a story contain? Besides, the FIA need to approve chosen numbers; Alexander Rossi wanted to use #15 but was told that he could not. There does not appear to be any literature on how numbers are chosen among new drivers. We've got Norris, Giovinazzi and Russell (and Albon?); if it was chosen in order of drivers being signed, Norris or Giovinazzi could theoretically pick #63 and Russell would have to take something else. Jules Bianchi was given #17 because he was a rookie when estsblished drivers got first pick and his first three choices—#7, #27 and #77—were all taken by the time his turn came around. Between his helmet and his Facebook post, Russell has made his preference for #63 pretty clear, so Norris/Giovinazzi(/Albon?) would have to be a bit of a jerk to choose it unless they were really, genuinely attached to it. Best to wait for the entry list, which usually comes mid-December. 1.144.105.160 (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with both points, Sorry for the late reply, I'm having a wikibreak so it's best to ping me. RhinosF1 (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Overuse of images

As per @Tvx1's comment above, a wider discussion on the use of images in the article is called for.

The article currently has seven images in the "entries" section, which illustrate every driver move. I think that's excessive. Where is the need for so many images? In the past, we have only used the one or two most relevant pictures. 1.129.111.165 (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 19 October

Lets try this again—I forgot to put the template in last time. There are a few changes that are needed to be made to the driver changes section. First, the number of images should be reduced. There should be at most two. I would suggest keeping the Leclerc/Räikkönen pair as they are the most relevant.

Secondly, the note in the table explaining Red Bull's engine situation is completely unnecessary. It is already explained in the prose, so the note should be removed.

Finally, the prose need to be re-written:

"The lead up to the 2019 season has seen a high volume [huh?] of driver changes. [compared to what?] Only Mercedes and Haas will feature the same line-up as the previous season. [not true—some teams have not confirmed their final driver line-ups] Daniel Ricciardo is scheduled to leave Red Bull Racing after five years with the team, joining Renault. Ricciardo's agreement with the team is that he is to replace Carlos Sainz Jr., who has been on loan to the French manufacturer from Red Bull's driver development programme. [this implies Red Bull traded Ricciardo away when he left of his own volition] Sainz did not have his deal with Red Bull renewed and will to move to McLaren to replace two-time World Drivers' Champion Fernando Alonso, who had earlier announced that he would not compete in Formula One in 2019. Alonso's 2018 teammate Stoffel Vandoorne did not have his contract renewed. McLaren's test driver and McLaren Young Driver Programme member [his European F3 title seems far more relevant] Lando Norris was promoted to replace Vandoorne. Ricciardo's drive at Red Bull Racing is scheduled to be taken by Pierre Gasly, who has been competing for Scuderia Toro Rosso since making his first Formula One start at the 2017 Malaysian Grand Prix. After much speculation, [there is ALWAYS speculation; this is nothing new] Ferrari announced the signing of current Sauber driver, Ferrari Driver Academy member and Ferrari test-driver [pick one] Charles Leclerc in September Kimi Räikkönen, who has driven for Ferrari for 8 years over two stints, [is Räikkönen's first stint with Ferrari a decade ago relevant?] will return to Sauber, with whom he had started his career in the 2001 season. Räikkönen will be joined at Sauber by Ferrari test-driver Antonio Giovinazzi, who is set to replace Marcus Ericsson. Giovinazzi previously started two Grands Prix at the beginning of the 2017 season, when he replaced an injured Pascal Wehrlein at Sauber. Daniil Kvyat will rejoin Toro Rosso, after last racing for the team in 2017. Current Formula Two championship leader and Mercedes Young Drivers Programme member [you can't mention Mercedes' YDP without discussing its failure] George Russell will drive for Williams, with negotiations having begun as early as June. [relevance is questionable—Russell was promoted so Mercedes could save face after failing Ocon; this over-states his relationship with the team, especially in light of the criticism he took in Monza]"

The section should read like this:

"The lead up to the 2019 championship has seen several driver changes. Daniel Ricciardo is scheduled to leave Red Bull Racing after five years with the team and move to Renault. Ricciardo's agreement with the team will see him replace Carlos Sainz Jr. Red Bull promoted Pierre Gasly from sister team Scuderia Toro Rosso.

"Sainz Jr., who was on loan to Renault in 2018, did not have his contract with Red Bull renewed. He is due to move to McLaren, where he will be partnered by 2017 European Formula 3 champion Lando Norris. Sainz Jr. and Norris will replace Stoffel Vandoorne and two-time World Drivers' Champion Fernando Alonso; Alonso announced his retirement from Formula 1 while Vandoorne did not have his contract with the team renewed.

"Charles Leclerc will leave Sauber after one year with the team. He will join Ferrari, taking the place of Kimi Räikkönen. Räikkönen returned to Sauber, the team he started his career with in 2001. He will be partnered with Antonio Giovinazzi, who made two starts for the team in 2017 when he replaced the injured Pascal Wehrlein.

"Daniil Kvyat will rejoin Scuderia Toro Rosso. Kvyat last raced for the team in 2017 before being dropped by the team for the 2018 championship.

"Current Formula 2 championship leader George Russell signed a contract to join Williams."

That should fix the issues. 1.144.108.87 (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. First of all apologies for the extend time it took to action this. I have changed to reflect the requested text as much as possible. I also agree that there were excessive images but I feel more discussion is needed to find out what should be retained and how.Tvx1 16:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1, @MetalDylan — the article currently says "Lewis Hamilton is scheduled to defend his World Drivers' Champion title", but that's a bit awkward. Hamilton is champion whatever happens—whether he retires, breaks his leg an misses half the championship, or history itself ends. A better way of putting it would be "Lewis Hamilton will be the reigning World Drivers' Champion". If someone is defending their title, they are actively trying to win it again; if they are the reigning champion, they hold the title whatever they do with it (like Massa being the reigning winner of the French Grand Prix). 1.129.110.36 (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@1.129.110.36 Not sure why you've decided to bring this up in an unrelated talk section, but ok..

This is pretty much the wording that is used every year. The fact that Hamilton is contracted to drive in 2019 and is the 2018 champion means he is defending it. There are cases where the champion would defend it, such as Rosberg in 2017. This kind of seems like a moot point. MetalDylan (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It means that he is expected to defend if he starts the 2019 championship. Don't forget that Rosberg made a quite abrupt and unexpected announcement that he would retire. That is a clear example of a reigning champion not defending his title. Hamilton is not defending his 2018 title yet. If remember well PM made the exact same complaint last year. That being said I'm not opposed to using "the reigning world champion". He is both the 2017 and 2018 champion, so he is the reigning champion either way.Tvx1 16:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@MetalDylan, @Tvx1 — my issue is (as usual) that in the interests of not talking about things as if they are certain, the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction. "Reigning World Champion" leaves open the possibility that, for whatever reason, Hamilton will not return. But "scheduled to be the reigning World Champion" injects too much uncertainty as both "scheduled" and "reigning" are used the same way. "Reigning World Champion" can be read as "Hamilton won the championship, but there is uncertainty as to whether he will race", but "scheduled to be the reigning World Champion" can be read as "there is uncertainty as to how certain Hamilton is that he will race", and I don't think that's what we're trying to say at all. 1.129.105.246 (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I really believe you are overthinking this.Tvx1 23:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — not at all. One of the idiosyncracies of the English language is that it's cobbled together from half a dozen different languages and compared to other languages, it has very inconsistent rules related to grammar and syntax. Hamilton is the reigning champion whatever happens—it's not something that begins at some pre-determined point in the future. 1.144.111.202 (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 7 November

There are two things that need changing. First, this sentence in the lead:

"However, the 1,000th World Championship Grand Prix officially sanctioned by the FIA will be hosted in Italy, due to eleven races of the World Championship having been the Indianapolis 500, organized by the American Automobile Association from 1950 to 1960."

Should be removed, or at the very least turned into a footnote. The sport recognises China as the 1000th race, but this addition to the article appears to be an attempt to explain why the 1000th race is really being held at a "traditional" European venue and not an unpopular "new/Asian/Tilke" circuit.

Secondly, the "calendar expansion" sub-section should be removed. The calendar is not expanding in 2019, so this would be more appropriate in the 2020 article. 1.144.104.197 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done I agree, and have done both changes. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Joseph2302 — it might be worth removing it outright. Try as I might, I cannot find any sources to support it. As far as the sport it concerned, China is the 1000th race.

Also, there is a difference between "officially sanctioned" and "organised". The Australian Grand Prix is organised by the Australian Grand Prix Corporation but is nevertheless still sanctioned by the FIA. The more I think about it, the more I suspect the subtext of that statement is "rest easy, F1 fans—the real 1000th race is at a traditional European venue the way it should be".

The "test drivers" column should be removed, too. 1.129.109.79 (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Accessibility

@Tvx1, @DeFacto — I don't know what you two are trying to do with your latest round of edits, but what I do know is that you've managed to break the table. This is what it now looks like on mobile and tablet devices:

No.	Driver name
5 16	Sebastian Vettel Charles Leclerc

If you don't understand what the markup does, don't remove it! The nowraps are there to improve accessibility for tablet and mobile readers. In the meantime, how about you discuss the changes that you want to make on the talk page? 1.129.108.91 (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

All I did was tidy the table syntax and fix the sortability problem. It was alright when I left it, with the "nowraps" working fine. I think Tvx1 corrupted it trying to stop the sort working again. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@DeFacto — I don't care who did what and when. I care that it stops. You have a sandbox and article talk pages for a reason. Use them. For someone who spent most of the last week extolling the virtues of consensus-building, you did not make much of an effort to do that here. Was the markup inelegant? Yes, but mostly because it was the solution to making the article accessible to all readers back when sortability was first introduced (and we didn't really know what we were doing; it was a trial and error approach), which you would have known if you had taken five minutes to ask. You might not have been the one to remove the nowrap markup, but breaking the table was an entirely predictable (and avoidable) outcome of you rushing in like a bull in a china shop. 1.129.108.91 (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Well I think you should care, and you should be more careful of your attitude. My fixes were minor and inconsequential, other than they made the code more elegant (and easier to maintain) and fixed specific and glaring sortability issues. If there was any "bull in china shop" action it was by another, in their panic to undo my fixes. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It was nothing more than a nowrap missing for the cell of Räikkönen&Giovinazzi. Something fixed quicker than it took to have this discussion here. Nothing worth making a drama about. Nothing warranted accusing each other of having bad faith or low intelligence.Tvx1 13:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Rushing in to fix and counter-fix markup without thinking about the implications of the changes seems like a pretty stupid thing to do to me. Especially since you're both experienced editors who should know better. You get it right 99 times out of 100. Pointing out the one time you do something stupid isn't an accusstion of bad faith. The article has an edit history that demonstrates you did something stupid. And now, you're refusing to admit that you did anything wrong and DeFacto is only willing to admit to wrongdoing if he can point the blame at anyone else. Is this really the most constructive way to edit the article? 1.144.104.224 (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's get this into perspective... Here we are talking about the code used to display, without line-feeds, a column in a table in a backwater article in Wikipedia, and not the code used to land A380s in thick fog. And as I said before, I fixed the code and it was working perfectly when I left it. What happened next is in no way down to me. You could probably have figured that out for yourself if you were more interested in getting the table right and less interested in being confrontational. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

When did I claim I didn't do anything wrong. I said it was just a simple oversight (which even only cause problems for people using the smallest mobile screens) and it was a simple fix. There is really no need to make such a drama out of that neither to be so patronizing. You aren't without mistakes either.Tvx1 12:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Sortability

Example 'entries table' with all columns as sortable

Constructor Chassis Power unit Race drivers No. Driver name Ferrari TBA Ferrari 5 Sebastian Vettel 16 Charles Leclerc Haas-Ferrari TBA Ferrari 8 Romain Grosjean 20 Kevin Magnussen McLaren-Renault MCL34 Renault 55 Carlos Sainz Jr. TBA Lando Norris Mercedes TBA Mercedes 44 Lewis Hamilton 77 Valtteri Bottas Red Bull Racing-TBA RB15 TBA 10 Pierre Gasly 33 Max Verstappen Renault TBA Renault 3 Daniel Ricciardo 27 Nico Hülkenberg Sauber-Ferrari TBA Ferrari 7 Kimi Räikkönen TBA Antonio Giovinazzi Scuderia Toro Rosso-Honda TBA Honda 26 Daniil Kvyat TBA TBA TBA-Mercedes TBA Mercedes 11 Sergio Pérez TBA TBA Williams-Mercedes TBA Mercedes TBA George Russell TBA TBA References References

Following on from the above item, #Accessibility. Do we really think that if a reader clicks to sort the table by racing driver number that they really do not want it sorted by that number, but want it sorted by team (based on the lowest driver number used by the team)? I fixed it, but Tvx1 regressed it back again (messing up the accessibility in the process) claiming that counter-intuitive sort result was designed to be that way by consensus. I propose fixing it again to sort intuitively on both the driver number and name columns. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The exact format and pattern of the sortable table was the result of the discussion starting here and finally finishing here. The problem with your proposed sort is that due to the use of rowspans in that case, clicking the sort button causes the spanned rows to irreversibly split. That was a major concern in the discussion process leading up to the use of this table format and there was a unanimous agreement that split was not acceptable and so the current format was devised. It has been in use for years certainly on the 2014 and 2015 articles without any complaint of any reader on the actual sorting pattern. So I really don't see the benefit of what you are requesting here.Tvx1 13:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is "irreversibly split", and even whilst displaying with the split, the data is still intact and correctly sorted. OTOH, as it is, the sort on the driver number is never correct. And, AFAIK, Wikipedia doesn't collect reader feedback, so we'd never know how many readers think it's crap and move on. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I inserted a collapsed example of the current table in this format at the top of this section. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Why has everything been forced into a left alignment? There is a difference between simplifying the markup and introducing a forced change. 1.144.104.224 (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This is an example designed to show how the sortability can be corrected, and not how to simplify the markup (although the markup might be simpler too). Justification within the columns can be exactly how it is in the article, or however else we might want it. What do you think about getting the sort to work like this, as might be reasonably expected by a reader? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@DeFacto — I don't. I view and edit from a mobile and the sortability function isn't available on mobiles or tablets. All I will say is that you should take care to ensure that improving the sortability for the desktop site does not compromise the accessibility for tablet and mobile users, like removing the nowraps. It is possible to over-design the table and my concern is thst you will do exactly that. Much of the clumsy markup was there because when we first introduced sortability, we had to find a way to do it without compromising access for tablet and mobile readers. 1.129.109.14 (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Does the sample here work in the same way as the original article table on your device? It looks the same to me on mine. And like I keep telling you, it wasn't me who removed the nowrap. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

It does for now. The only thing wrong is the forced left alignment. We should keep the style between articles consitent—centre alignment for headers, constructors, numbers and rounds.

Speaking of the rounds, I don't know if the sortability will cause problems if there are numerical and alphabetical values in the same column (ie a driver who contests all races has "All" in the table, but a driver who contests two races might have "1–2"). If it does, it might be worth changing what the values mean so that "1" means "1 round", not "round 1".

And as I keep telling you, I don't care that you didn't specifically remove the nowraps. You should have taken the time to ask why complex markup was necessary before you made those changes. 1.129.108.255 (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it is a good time to rethink why we have started to use centre-alignment in the first place? Especially I can't understand weird necessity to use centre-alignment for constructors, due to different lengths of their names left-alignment is better. Numbers and rounds haven't such difference, but it mean that extra parameter should be added for already complicated code. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The example table in this thread breaks the table in that you lose the row spans when sorting to driver number and then back to constructor, which is obviously a big issue. Secondly, I would be very against changing the round format from round 1 to 1 round, this would be way too confusing and wouldn't be possible to clearly show what round a driver had participated in, such as in 2016. MetalDylan (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The WDC results matrix shows that in a far more accessible way. 1.129.109.116 (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

MetalDylan, it doesn't really "break it", it more resolves it into what it actually means and correctly displays one row per team per car. As far as the data convyed is concerned, it gives exactly the same result. I'd say it is better that way than having the dysfunctional sort situation that we currently have. Thoughts? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

DeFacto, I don't think that having repeated info (such as the constructor name, etc.) is better and I think that merged cells (rowspan) is a clearer way of showing the info. I appreciate that doesn't really fix the sortability issue but, personally, I don't think many users would sort the table anyway as it is presented in the most logical format. MetalDylan (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

MetalDylan, with the proposed sortability fix, if they don't use the sort they won't get the rows separated (i.e. it will stay looking exactly as it is now with the row spans intact), so no problem there. OTOH, if they do use the sort they will get the result they expect. Win-win! Would you be happy to have this fix in place? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

DeFacto, personally I think you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. I don't see the benefit of making the change so would have to say I'm opposed. MetalDylan (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

MetalDylan, wouldn't it be better then to make the driver number column non-sortable, rather than tolerate the wrong sort that results at the moment? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

DeFacto, Yes I would agree with that. Personally I think only the constructor, engine supplier and (when applicable) the entry name should be sortable where as the driver number, rounds and chassis shouldn't be as it provides no obvious correlation of data. MetalDylan (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't really think you can reasonably claim rows being split and information duplicated upon clicking the sort button as "they will get the result they expect" and "win-win". The previous discussions I linked to demonstrate quite the contrary. It's quite the opposite of what one expects and works counter-productive on the sorting of the power unit and constructors columns. Anyway, I have no strong feelings about the number columns being sortable. Although I still find it useful I don't care about it strongly.Tvx1 13:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't stop sorting from working on the power unit or constructors columns, all it does is separate them out into separate rows - per the documentation. One could argue that rowspan should be avoided anyway, as without it tables are much easier to edit and maintain (particularly by the less experienced editors). -- DeFacto (talk). 17:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 26 November

The "entrant" column should be removed from the driver table as it is unsourced. In particular, I cannot find any sources to confirm Rich Energy's involvement with Haas—the most I can find is articles stating they are "expected to be" naming rights sponsor. 1.129.109.64 (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/11533248/haas-sign-rich-energy-deal

Here’s SkyF1 confirming the deal. Also worth noting that the official https://richenergy.com website was updated with the images currently circulating the web on the same day the announcement was made. AdamComer (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@AdamComer — that doesn't change the fact that the content is unsourced in the article. 1.129.109.136 (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Spintendo  09:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It's impossible to provide a source for the changes he's suggesting, that's the point. Someone has filled out the Entrant column but provided no source for the names. These would normally be sourced from the FIA entry list, but as far as I know that hasn't been released yet.

Haas officially confirmed Rich Energy and their new team name here. The rest of the entrant names are unsourced. Wicka wicka (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done. It was just to soon to have it. Let's wait for an entry list.Tvx1 17:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: The first entry list is typically released in mid-December, right? Wicka wicka (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Early december even.Tvx1 19:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Lance Stroll

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

---

Hasn't Lance Stroll being confirmed by Force India? He has represented Force India to test in the post-season test. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Not yet - we'll need official confirmation by the team or for the FIA to publish the entry list. Ivaneurope (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Can this video be the reference? [1] -- Unnamelessness (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness — if that video amounted to confirmation of Stroll joining the team, why hasn't there been a single story about it in any news source? 1.129.111.239 (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. And that's the reason why I start this discussion. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The video only shows him taking part in a test for Force India. That doesn't confirm him having been signed as full time racing driver. There multiple drivers who make one-off appearances with a team in those post season tests.Tvx1 14:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Unnamelessness:

"I don't know. And that's the reason why I start this discussion."

If in doubt, look to other sources. If Autosport, Sky, the BBC and/or Speedcafe are running the story, you can be confident that the story has been confirmed. 1.129.107.247 (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

OK. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request 30 November

Please revert this edit. It's clearly a tit-for-tat edit by someone who isn't getting his way. 1.129.107.247 (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. And thanks for warning the editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done by a different editor DannyS712 (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 1 December

Please remove the Williams and Haas sponsorship changes from the article—we don't give any weight to sponsor changes in other articles.

Please restore the prose format to the team and driver changes. Prose is preferable to dot points. 1.129.105.41 (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Article reverted to last good edit. MetalDylan (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2018 (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) 23:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

That is a question for WT:F1 I think, and not here. Here is for discussion on the content of this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware that this is for 2019 season content...and fine I will move the question over there. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The above has been actioned as per the consensus on WT:F1. Instead of a new page being created the Racing Point Force India page was renamed.AdamComer (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Racing Point

Was wondering if it's worth listing the Force India / Racing Point situation in the 'Team Changes' section, under the Red Bull prose?

Should the prose, if added, word it in a way that insinuates Force India are leaving and Racing Point entering as a new team, or should it go into the buyout and explain that one team became the other?

I propose using this extract from the Racing Point F1 Team page:

"During late July 2018, Force India was put under administration. Its assets were purchased by a consortium of investors, named Racing Point UK Ltd. and led by Lawrence Stroll. The consortium created a new constructor with the assets and entered the sport prior to the 2018 Belgian Grand Prix, taking the vacated entry of the original Force India team. They raced under the name Racing Point Force India. In 2019 the team is to drop 'Force India' altogether and race as Racing Point F1 Team." AdamComer (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Driver changes table

The consensus is against the proposed changes to use a drive changes table.

Cunard (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

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

---

I was recently flicking through previous F1 season wikipages and thought about the driver changes table that is on the F1 2001 page. I think this could be a neat and well organized way of presenting the silliness of the 2019 season in terms of seat swapping. I have made a draft in my sandbox which I think looks good. I'm sure the majority of you will disagree but thought id get some feedback in case people like it.

The lead up to the 2019 championship has seen several driver changes, as follow in the table:

Driver	2018		2019
	Team	Position	Team	Position
Daniel Ricciardo	Red Bull	Full-time driver	Renault	Full-time driver
Carlos Sainz Jr	Renault	Full-time driver	McLaren	Full-time driver
Kimi Raikonnen	Ferrari	Full-time driver	Sauber	Full-time driver
Charles Leclerc	Sauber	Full-time driver	Ferrari	Full-time driver
Pierre Gasly	Toro Rosso	Full-time driver	Red Bull	Full-time driver
Lando Norris	McLaren	Test/reserve driver	McLaren	Full-time driver
George Russell	Mercedes	Test/reserve driver	Williams	Full-time driver
Antonio Giovinazzi	Ferrari	Test/reserve driver	Sauber	Full-time driver
Daniil Kvyat	Ferrari	Test/reserve driver	Toro Rosso	Full-time driver
Marcus Ericsson	Sauber	Full-time driver	Sauber	Reserve/Test driver
Fernando Alonso	McLaren	Full-time driver	N/A	Retired
Stoffel Vandoorne	McLaren	Full-time driver	N/A	Released

Happy to discuss, but I think it shows what has happened in a nice round about way without the need for loads of photos as had previously been attempted. MetalDylan (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary. The prose of the article is a far more appropriate way of presenting the content. 1.129.105.107 (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Excellent Idea, looks a lot cleaner and easier to read. RhinosF1 (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC) (ping me when replying)

Seems like this one might split opinions... MetalDylan (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose since list serves it better. Not everything has to be in tables. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Agree, it looks neat. --Marbe166 (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia standards are to use prose over tables. Table for it is not needed, as we have a list of the 2019 drivers anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Some important (or detail) imformation will be lost. --Unnamelessness (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Prose is far better than tables, we have enough tables in the article so as it is. The photos are also not a proper substitute for prose, and should be used to illustrate, not just to list faces. The³5₉ (Talk) 15:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Prose works better for this kind of information. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sabbatino @Joseph2302 @Unnamelessness @The359 @Corvus tristis Apologies, I probably wasn't clear, this would be in addition to prose, as in F1 2001, although I appreciate this probably doesn't change your opinions. MetalDylan (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I will be glad if the table will be dropped as well from 2001 article and any other possible articles. It adds nothing to the article. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with Corvus tristis, this table adds nothing to the 2001 article and won't add anything to the 2019 one. Also all the team names on the proposed version don't match the constructor names earlier in the article, which will just create confusion instead of helping. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

If the team names correlated would you then agree that the benefits of the table adds to, rather than detracts from, the article? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Which benefits? That it takes up space? That it doesn't convey anything not already in the prose.Tvx1 13:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Have you been following the discussion - you'll see the benefits are mentioned there? Increased use of space is not a benefit per-se, but if the space is occupied by something which gives benefit, as I believe this table does, then it is a worthwhile addition. For me, it gives quick answers by being an easily scannable summary, as opposed to trying to digest the dense prose. If more detail and context is required then one can take the time to try and follow the prose. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I rather think you are the one who has not been following the discussion. No-one but you sees any benefits here.Tvx1 21:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

You definitely need to read it again. As I read it, there are four contributors who are complimentary towards the idea (including the proposer), and seven (including yourself) who apparently misunderstood the proposal (incorrectly assuming the idea was to replace the prose with the table). After their mistake was pointed out, two confirmed their opposition regardless, reasoning unconvincingly that it will add nothing (when it clearly adds clarity). So four broadly in favour, two against it in principle and five who have opposed something that hadn't been proposed. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose It's not suitable to replace prose as that would remove the ability tp provide context and it's not practical as addition to the prose since that would just be excessive.Tvx1 18:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support as it compliments the prose perfectly - the prose for the context and finer detail with the table as a useful (especially when sortable as below) summary. It is good application for a table.

Driver	2018		2019
	Team	Position	Team	Position
Daniel Ricciardo	Red Bull	Full-time driver	Renault	Full-time driver
Carlos Sainz Jr	Renault	Full-time driver	McLaren	Full-time driver
Kimi Raikonnen	Ferrari	Full-time driver	Sauber	Full-time driver
Charles Leclerc	Sauber	Full-time driver	Ferrari	Full-time driver
Pierre Gasly	Toro Rosso	Full-time driver	Red Bull	Full-time driver
Lando Norris	McLaren	Test/reserve driver	McLaren	Full-time driver
George Russell	Mercedes	Test/reserve driver	Williams	Full-time driver
Antonio Giovinazzi	Ferrari	Test/reserve driver	Sauber	Full-time driver
Daniil Kvyat	Ferrari	Test/reserve driver	Toro Rosso	Full-time driver
Marcus Ericsson	Sauber	Full-time driver	Sauber	Reserve/Test driver
Fernando Alonso	McLaren	Full-time driver	N/A	Retired
Stoffel Vandoorne	McLaren	Full-time driver	N/A	Released

-- DeFacto (talk). 21:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It's completely useless. There is simply no need for another table; we should be finding ways of removing tables, not adding them. More to the point, it's full of misrepresentstions. For example, it states that Lando Norris and Daniil Kvyat were both test drivers. While that was their official title, they had very different roles. For instance, Norris drove in FP1 sessions, but Kvyat only ever did simulator work for Ferrari. Referring to both of them as "test/reserve drivers" is misleading. Then you've got George Russell, who was a Mercedes test driver, but did something else entirely; he drove in test sessions outside Grand Prix weekends.

But that's all moot. Some of these drivers have done things in 2018 that are arguably more important or notable than being test and reserve drivers. Russell is currently leading the Formula 2 standings; if he wins, that's a major title and definitely more significant than a reserve role. All you've done is dumb the article down. 1.129.107.9 (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

That some of the drivers in the table have done other things too is not an argument for not including the table. And that I support the proposal to include this useful table in the article in no way implies that all I've "done is dumb the article down", as I haven't changed the article in any way - for better or for worse - by supporting what I think is an excellent proposal. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

You haven't actually refuted any of my points. All you have done is say "no, I don't need to address that". 1.129.105.202 (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I haven't addressed your points because I do not think they are not relevant to the inclusion of this table - errors in the current sample can be corrected. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I took the time to outline my concerns. The least you can do is take the time to address them instead of dismissing them as "not relevant". All your table does is duplicate article content and over-simplify it. It doesn't add anything of value to the article, which makes your proposal "not relevant". 1.129.105.238 (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not my table, I'm merely supporting the proposer's initiative. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: A table does not explain the reasons. A sacking is vastly different from a driver choosing to leave. Plus it gives attention to people who will take no part in the championship.

There are too many tables as it is and Wikipedia's preference is to use prose. Tables are primarily for complex data of which this is not. --Falcadore (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Falcadore, the table isn't to replace the prose, it is to complement it. The table gives an easily digested overview of this data that lends itself to being presented in rows and columns (see MOS:TABLE), so adds value. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

So it is taking data from an existing table and comparing it with events not covered by this article? --Falcadore (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Falcadore, eh? No, it is summarising the prose in the 'Driver changes' section of this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

So it is not data from the drivers table further up the page and comparing it to the 2018 season? It can quite easily be both but despite your denial my previous statement is still correct. --Falcadore (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Falcadore, read the prose and you'll see the table mirrors it (and in a more easily digestable way) almost exactly, and we've been clear that is complements rather than replaces prose. Given that further clarification, do you still oppose? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

So it duplicates information already presented? --Falcadore (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly, it summarises the salient points in an easily read form. The prose above it in the same section gives the detail and context and explains the subtleties. Do you still oppose? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

And we do not need to spoon feed people information simply because we can. Any user can just as easily read the information in prose. The chart is redundant. We're an encyclopedia, not a picture book.

There seems to be an overwhelming amount of people opposed to this. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The359, this time yesterday I think there were four in favour of and two against the actual proposal, all the others were against something that hadn't been proposed. I haven't examined how that has changed today, have you? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not correct. Lots of people are opposed to it, but you seem to be ignoring people's opinions because they voted before you explicitly said the table was in addition to the text. And I have made it clear that I oppose, yet you seem to be ignoring this. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Joseph2302, it was the proposer, not me, who clarified it was in addition. I didn't ignore you, I counted you amongst those who I thought had opposed what was proposed. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"it summarises the salient points in an easily read form"

But as I pointed out (and which you felt you did not need to address), there are multiple definitions of the same role. Kvyat, Russell and Norris are all listed as "test/reserve driver", but Kvyat only did simulator work, Russell drove in the mid-season tests, and Norris drove in FP1. Calling them all "test/reserve driver" implies they had the same role when they clearly did not.

As for it being "an easily read form", why are people going to bother to read the prose when they can just read your table? As I just demonstrated, the table is misleading. If someone only reads your table, they will come to the wrong conclusion, hence the dumbing-down of the article. If this was the Simple English Wikipedia, your proposal might have some relevance. 1.129.105.238 (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

You are overlooking the fact that this is a proposal with an example, not a dictat requiring this table exactly. It can be modified, clarified and honed to cover your points. You could, perhaps, try to offer constructive compromises to move the discussion forward? The prose will always be the "master", and be available to those who want to know the "whys" and "wheres" as well as the "whats" and "whens". -- DeFacto (talk). 07:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not a vote, and your count is poorly thought out. You seem to be confusing people's opposition for misunderstanding. Everyone knows we are not getting rid of prose. They are simply saying that prose trumps charts. And we already have the prose, making the chart redundant. People oppose this, that's just a fact. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The359, it's clearly not a vote, it's a discussion trying to establish a consensus. The difference is that for consensus purposes, weight is given per quality of argument wrt Wiki policies and guidelines. If there is no meaningful argument given, or one which is against something that clearly isn't being proposed is given, then obviously little weight should be given to that argument. Some reasons explicitly assumed the prose was being replaced. As I read it now, there are 3 or 4 with a principled argument against its inclusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"The difference is that for consensus purposes, weight is given per quality of argument wrt Wiki policies and guidelines."

And that becomes a problem when one person is trying to give weight to the quality of arguments from the opposing point of view. It's too easy to misrepresent things to make the opposing argument seem weak by comparison.

"You could, perhaps, try to offer constructive compromises to move the discussion forward?"

You want constructive? Try this: forget the proposal. It adds nothing of value to the article, encourages readers to skim rather than read the article, and in the format you have provided, misrepresents things. When you ask me to provide a compromise, that presumes the table will wind up in the article in some format and that it's just a question of what that format will be. The problem is that it's pretty clear from the discussion that people are opposed to its inclusion in any form. The fact that you apparently cannot accept the idea that some people can be completely opposed to your proposal just demonstrates my point about you misrepresenting the "weight" of arguments. 1.129.105.217 (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please concentrate on what's being said - it is not my proposal and I did not provide the proposed format. Hence your argument predicated on that is again moot. I do however, support the proposal as I think it adds clarity and complements the prose in a way that makes good use of a table. The weight of should be arguments be based on their quality wrt Wiki policy and guidelines and not solely on how many "oppose" votes there are, regardless of their quality (see WP:CONLEVEL). -- DeFacto (talk). 08:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"The weight of should be arguments be based on their quality wrt Wiki policy and guidelines and not solely on how many "oppose" votes there are, regardless of their quality"

And all of the "oppose" arguments are of very high quality. 1.129.105.65 (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(taking up from where I left of) Don't give me any guff about a table being easier to read. It IS duplicating existing information. If the prose is not easy to read on its own it needs to be re-written, NOT supplemented with a table!

With wikipedia you present information once and you do it right. You don't turn it into a table and pepper it with flags to make it look pretty. --Falcadore (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

With the table you can instantly see which teams have driver changes and what the movement of the driver was. OTOH, the prose would require a bit of effort to extract that info from, even if it was well written. The "guff" is well-founded I think, Wikipedia should provide clear access to quality information, and that may well mean summarising the essential elements of it in an easy-to-digest form for added convenience. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"that may well mean summarising the essential elements of it in an easy-to-digest form for added convenience"

Where is the demand for that? Please, show us all a diff where someone is complaining that the prose is too difficult to read, thus demonstrating the need for change. 1.129.105.65 (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

If tables are so good, why are you using prose in this debate?

A line has to be drawn somewhere with regards to the laziness of a reader.

And thirdly, the article is the 2019 Formula One championship. With the title of the subject in mind, what everyone was doing last year is not important enough to be written twice. Why is it so important to have a table of what drivers were doing last year? We don't have any tables listing what drivers are doing in the following year, why have them for the preceeding year? --Falcadore (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

All good points Falcadore (except the first one maybe, but it made me laugh!), I'll save my energy for something a little more worthwhile. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"I'll save my energy for something a little more worthwhile."

What could be more worthwhile than refuting the argument put to you? So far all you have done is alternate between claiming arguments lack substance or avoided addressing them. Why should this circus be allowed to go on for any longer? 1.144.106.201 (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that when a discussion reaches the point where entrenchment precludes acceptance of logical reasoning (on either side, of course) it is time to weigh up the costs versus the potential benefits of continuing. I think that point has been passed here (as is quite often the case, it seems, in these F1 related discussions) and I've decided the costs of continuing outweigh any potential benefits here. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Can't you just say "at this point, I'm not going to get a consensus" and concede defeat? 1.144.106.10 (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the notion of victory or defeat in a discussion about content is misguided, the point is to achieve consensus (not to win a battle of 'consensus' versus 'no consensus'). It's not my argument to concede anyway, I'm just one of the supporters of someone else's proposal. I've tried to persuade those who oppose the addition of it's worth - and concede that I have apparently failed. Whoever closes this discussion will have to decide if the "quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" is sufficient to declare a consensus, one way or the other, or whether the process has failed and a "no consensus" verdict is appropriate. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You just can't admit that you're wrong, can you? You made a suggestion, it was rejected and now you're coming up with this convoluted explanation as to how you weren't really wrong all along. All you have successfully done is waste a week of everyone's time. 1.144.106.223 (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

What exactly do you think I was wrong about? Bear in mind that it was not my suggestion, all I did was add my name as another supporter of the idea and tried (with no apparent success as I said) to convince others to support it too. I thought that's how consensus building is supposed to work. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

In an ideal world. But one can also exaggerate and then you arrive in the territory of WP:BLUDGEON.Tvx1 17:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose As frequent contributors know, I am in favour of consistency between articles of the same type, meaning that I think that all season articles should follow the same "formula" so to speak. Which means that a driver changes table would - in case it is added here - need to be added to all season articles. And that would be a huge pain in the ass for all seasons up until the late 80s, when mid-season driver changes were A LOT more common than they are today. This would completely clutter up the articles... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

According to WP:CON, "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." So which Wikipedia policy would you be relying on to support that argument? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you really think you're going to achieve a consensus by denying that everyone opposed to you has made a quality argument?

It's time to acknowledge that you're not going to get a consensus here. You've been trying for days and you haven't persuaded anyone to change their minds. 1.144.106.201 (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest WP:USEPROSE. --Falcadore (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You have to be completely and totally clueless to not realize the inherent advantages of a table over prose; namely, the ability to summarize information in a way that is quickly and easily digested. This isn't debatable, frankly, it's an objectively true fact. It's the reason anyone anywhere uses tables. Stop blindly quoting wiki policy and use your brains. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Just because they have advantages—and nobody here is denying that they do—that doesn't mean they should be used for everything. It's a question of what is an appropriate application for a table. In its final form, the article will have five tables: entries, calendar, results summary, WDC matrix and WCC matrix. That's a lot, and given the relative stability of the calendar and the regulations, there will be a disproportionately low amount of prose compared to other championship articles. Do we really want to add another table to that, especially one that only summarises (read: repeats) existing content? 1.129.108.219 (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Guys, who supports the addition of the table. It is obvious that we can supplement any prose in article by an additional table (i.e team changes, calendar changes, championship leader changes, technical and sporting regulation changes, etc), but does it really make an article more encyclopedic or it makes articles more like a bunch of statistics sheets? Nobody denies the advantages of the tables, but they should be used moderately. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

SOrry for the delay in catching up this thread. I thought it was a reasonably clear way to show the driver changes at a glance in addition to the prose. I agree its a lot of tbales in one page but I don't think that would make the page too cluttered on less encyclopedic. Either way it seems to be the consensus is not to use the table, which is fine but I do think the politics of making everything consistent across all seasons runs the risk of the articles becoming duplicates of each other whereas there may be big changes (such as an abundance of driver changes) that should be clearly visible without the need to read a large chunk of prose. Let's face the majority of people that probably use these pages are F1-nerds and just want to know that facts. MetalDylan (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The current prose does the job fine. That table is quite difficult to read on some mobile devices if I may add. AdamComer (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Whilst I would prefer a more structured method than the current prose, the table as structured has the opposite problem of not allowing enough flexibility, I would also question whether the "previous" descriptions highlighting reserve/test roles is the best one, Russel and Norris for example are far better known for their F2 drives this year than for being test drivers. I would suggest a much better entry would be to include the major series they raced in the previous season unless they were 100% a test driver. also there is no need for the flags, they make it less readable and are superflous as they are in the main driver/team table. Hackerjack (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Add #18 Lance Stroll to Force India GV43 A4E (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Semi-protected edit request 2 December

There are a few changes that should be made to the prose. First, under "team changes":

"Racing Point Force India will officially be renamed as Racing Point F1 Team, removing the Force India name that had been a fixture on the F1 grid since 2008."

I think this over-emphasises the Force India name. It implies that the team was some kind of institution. It would probably work better like this:

"Racing Point Force India will officially be renamed as Racing Point F1 Team, completing the process of selling the team that began in August 2018."

There are also some changes that should be made to the "driver changes" section:

"2018 Formula Two champion and Mercedes Young Drivers Programme member George Russell signed a contract to drive for Williams. Robert Kubica is scheduled to make his much-anticipated return to Formula 1, replacing Sergey Sirotkin at Williams after missing eight seasons following his near-fatal rally crash in 2011 which also left him with permanent arm injuries."

There are two things that need changing here—Russell is the reigning Formula 2 champion, not the Formula Two champion. There is a difference between the FIA Formula 2 Championship and the FIA Formula Two Championship (and "Formula 2" is the common name). It also over-emphasises Russell's place in the Mercedes YDP and implies that his drive was a result of it (and let's be honest—with Ocon losing his Force India drive, Mercedes needed a YDP member on the grid to answer critics, but we don't have a source for it). Lastly, there's possibly an NPOV issue with the Kubica passage. It should read like this;

"2018 Formula 2 champion George Russell signed a contract to drive for Williams. Robert Kubica is scheduled to return to Formula 1, replacing Sergey Sirotkin at Williams. Kubica returns after an eight-year absence brought on by a rally car crash in 2011 that left him with serious arm injuries."

Feel free to tweak the wording if need be. 1.129.105.195 (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done - As you said, except I left in the "near-fatal" descriptor for the Kubica crash as it is supported by the source and seems relevant to explain such a long absence. A2soup (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Racing Point Name?

What are thoughts on Autosport claiming that Racing Point won't be the final name? https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/140491/racing-point-name-will-only-be-temporary?utm_source=Autosport+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3d20acd824-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_12_03_05_48&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_37b525b20e-3d20acd824-100597215 RhinosF1 (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Just came here to discuss the same because of this article on motorsport.com. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Have tried to represent the current situation in the article. Feel free to make adjustments where neccesary. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: That seems fine, maybe link to it as a note in the table. I'm not sure how to do that. RhinosF1 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Have tidied it up by including a note. As the name of Racing Point F1 Team is present in the current provisional F1 entry list for 2019, it needs to be included for consistency, but the note should clarify that the name *could* change bfore the start of the season. This has happened before when Force India said they would change their name before the start of the 2018 season, but again for consistency we must stick to official sources.MetalDylan (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Rookie identifier

Example of driver table with Rookie identifier and note for Giovinazzi

Teams and drivers under contract to compete in the 2019 World Championship Entrant Constructor Chassis Power unit Race drivers No. Driver name Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow Ferrari TBA Ferrari 5 16 Sebastian Vettel Charles Leclerc Rich Energy Haas F1 Team Haas-Ferrari TBA Ferrari 8 20 Romain Grosjean Kevin Magnussen McLaren F1 Team McLaren-Renault MCL34 Renault 4 55 Lando Norris  R  Carlos Sainz Jr. Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport Mercedes TBA Mercedes 44 77 Lewis Hamilton Valtteri Bottas Racing Point F1 Team Racing Point-Mercedes TBA Mercedes 11 18 Sergio Pérez Lance Stroll Aston Martin Red Bull Racing Red Bull Racing-Honda RB15 Honda 10 33 Pierre Gasly Max Verstappen Renault F1 Team Renault TBA Renault 3 27 Daniel Ricciardo Nico Hülkenberg Alfa Romeo Racing Alfa Romeo-Ferrari TBA Ferrari 7 99 Kimi Räikkönen Antonio Giovinazzi  R  Red Bull Toro Rosso Honda Scuderia Toro Rosso-Honda STR14 Honda 26 TBA Daniil Kvyat Alexander Albon  R  Williams Racing Williams-Mercedes FW42 Mercedes 63 88 George Russell  R  Robert Kubica Sources: R Rookie driver scheduled to compete in their first full season of Formula One. References References

What are people's thoughts on adding a 'Rookie' identifier to the table similar to what they use for IndyCar? My assumption is that this will be met with distain and slated but I think it is quite a nice way to clearly identify new drivers to F1 without the need for reading through all the prose. MetalDylan (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Don’t think that is relevant here. In Indycar the concept is written in the rules and there is a “Rookie of the Year” award. None of thosr exist in F1. Rookies don’t get any special treatment.Tvx1 13:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. "Rookie" is an official concept in IndyCar, not in F1. Wicka wicka (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 10 January

Please remove the folloeing text from the "driver changes" section:

"The only teams retaining the same two drivers from the 2018 season are Haas (with Romain Grosjean and Kevin Magnussen) and Mercedes (with Lewis Hamilton and Valtteri Bottas)."

If teams are retaining the same drivers they had in 2018, it's not a driver change. 1.129.107.140 (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 10:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 24 January

Could somebody please change the alignment of the driver photos in the "driver changes" section? They appear in a vertical alignment on mobile devices, but the caption says that they are aligned horizontally. I have tried every display setting possible, but it appears to be something to do with the way the site is coded.

Also(/alternatively), can someone replace the images of Sainz, Ricciardo and Gasly with the following image (it might need to be re-sized):

Robert Kubica will return to Formula 1 with Williams.

Last year there was a conversation about which image(s) to include and it was agreed that only the most notable one(s) should be added. I think Robert Kubica's return is far more notable than the RIC-SAI-GAS shuffle. 1.129.110.37 (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to resolve this, but the problem lies with using the "multiple image" template in horizontal alignment. I think the three drivers pictured do make sense, but they will have to be inserted differently. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I only see it as horizontal in mobile view, regardless of the phone's orientation or what phone it is... --DannyS712 (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Perhaps it is not the same with all use cases? Using Wikipedia's Android app, the images are stacked vertically in either orientation on my Pixel XL. And it is the same if I use the phone's Chrome browser. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Then since I can't replicate it, I won't try to solve it with no way of knowing if I fix it or mess up. --DannyS712 (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Fair enough. I'd like to hear from other editors before messing about with it. I would think the logical thing would be to rewrite the caption to eliminate any mention of the image location, which isn't really an accessible way of doing things anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712:, can you not make a screenshot of your mobile phone's screen where the images appear horizontal and post it here per WP:WPSHOT?

@Scjessey: It may appear logical, but it is not as simple. How else can we identity the named people in the pictures? The problem is with the template, not the captions. The images should simply never be stacking. What's the point of having a template with horizontal in its name when it doesn't work horizontally quite frequently?? I have already raised this on the template's talk page but there was little interest in fixing it. I can't make this simple fix myself because the template is edit-protected and can only be edited by template editors.Tvx1 00:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Well, I'm actually on my computer, but when I click "show mobile" and try it in different phones and at different orientations, and it always works. I'll see if I can upload a photo at some point if its still needed, but I'd rather not because I've had some bad experiences uploading wikipedia screenshots. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. DannyS712 (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2019

Please change the "Alfa Romeo" link in the constructor table. It currently links to Sauber which, given that Alfa Romeo in Formula One currently exists, makes it a WP:EGG. The prose of the article should be updated to explain the agreement in more detail. It currently reads "Sauber was renamed Alfa Romeo Racing as part of a sponsorship deal", which is limited (also, a space needs to be inserted before the "Sauber"). 1.144.105.145 (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done The link has been updated. I would prefer us to have more discussion on the exact wording before tackling the changes section.Tvx1 21:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)