Talk:2019 Formula One World Championship/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Map

The map should either be removed or corrected, for the Crimea is not part of Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:f4:43f7:2500:fd0d:1438:8362:d5ac (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Im no expert but it appears that both Ukraine and Russia claim it. The maps on both the Russia and Ukraine wikipedia pages include the crimea as part of its terretory. If we change it there will be undoubtable be someone else who either requests it changes back or does it themselves.
SSSB (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It's de facto governed by the Russian Federation. This has even come up before.Tvx1 15:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Though if it's meant to show de facto borders Azerbaijan should have the chunk occupied by Armenia taken out of it. Undoubtedly the map was made incorporating the views of its creator rather than any other basis. QueenCake (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think the map has any value to this article whatsoever. I say get rid of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It's justifiable to show where in the world the races are held. QueenCake (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Why is that relevant? The countries where the races are held are clearly shown in the various tables. It's just more redundant information, frankly, and apparently somewhat controversial. We certainly don't need anything unnecessarily controversial. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It shows where in the world races are held for people who don't know where sochi is in Russia, or who don't know where Azerbaijan is. I don't think the map was created with political bias. I'm assuming good faith and saying that the editor was unaware of Azerbaijans de facto borders (The Crimea thing is more recent with more media coveragae) and it's hardly controversial, it's been picked on twice in three years on minor technicalities, our constructors championship results tables are actually more controversial with more complaints about the current system. Besides I doubt most editors even notice that Crimea is shown as Russia. We can't remove every map of Russia and Ukraine, nor Azerbaijan and Armenia across all of Wikipedia's non political articles. We are making a mountain out of a mole hill with this de facto borders argument.
SSSB (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

"It shows where in the world races are held for people who don't know where sochi is in Russia." Wikipedia has this amazing thing called hyperlinks where people can literally click on Sochi and it'll tell them where it is and everything! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore that condescending comment and just going to say I'm not particularly fussed either way, I just don't see the point in removing it, it isn't doing any harm. WP:BROKEN applies here.
SSSB (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Except it is doing harm in that it has needlessly introduced a dispute about land occupations into an article about motor racing, while seemingly providing almost zero benefit to the reader. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

There was no dispute, there has never been one. The only dispute is this one about it's necessity. The above it not a dispute, it is simply someone pointing out what they thought was a mistake but isn't. That is not a dispute. As far as I can tell WP:BROKEN still applies here.
SSSB (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not necessary because it conveys no benefit to the reader, and the map itself is disputed by virtue of the fact that it misrepresents the status of Crimea. It is "broken" by that rationale. Besides, WP:BROKEN is just an essay. It's not policy, and it's not even a guideline. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

As I said before I am not particularly inclined either way, if you remove it I won't be reverting. But if your so adamant it must go, then go ahead. Thonk of this as a taster if one of the more stubborn members of WP:F1 (2 of the most prominant are incredibly stubborn, no prizes for guessing who) disagrees with you.
SSSB (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel very strongly about these maps. I always found them somewhat informative, but I don't see them as vital either. Doesn't matter too much to me whether they stay or not. This is typically something we keep doing because the previous articles did. In any case the borders issue was exaggerated.Tvx1 12:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't the Crimea issue simply be resolved by making a new map? We get a new one (almost) every year; it can't be that hard to do. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

If only it could be that easy. If the map is changed, there will be objections from the "other side" of the issue. That's why it is better to just get rid of it. I don't see it as useful anyway. The text makes it quite clear the F1 is a global sport, and that should be sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Fuel footnote

Regarding this. Please do not edit war over this footnote. Please discuss the matter here and come to an agreement instead. While I personally think the content is interesting, it strikes me as being a bit too generic for this 2019 article (it applies to previous years as well). And while true, the lack of a reference gives weight to the argument for exclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The rules were changed for 2019, increasing the maximum amount of fuel from 105kg to 110kg. The fuel is liquid, but the rules specifically state that the fuel is measured by weight, not by volume. Thus, the footnote is needed to explain why the rules state the weight of fuel in kilograms rather than litres.

The truth of the statement gives more weight to the argument for inclusion than the lack of reference does to the argument for exclusion. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, @Scjessey, it would help if you pinged the editors whose attention you wanted to get—like myself and @Maranello10. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

If for instance, the rules changed that in the 2019 season they were starting to measure fuel by weight rather than litres, then I could see an explanation being warranted. As mentioned by Scjessey, it has been measured by weight in previous seasons, so a justification is not needed in a 2019 article.

I reject the argument that it should be included simply due to its factual nature, as brevity in an article (what you leave out) is just as important as what you leave in. The front wing endplates were also changed for this year, should someone have to explain how they work? The aerodynamic theory of turbulence that also existed in 2018? This is primarily a sporting article, not a technical one, and the section is there to simply outline the broad technical changes, not to provide detail of why the FIA does certain things that they have been doing for years.

Finally, the reference is uncited, there is no instance in wikipedia that the truth of a statement has more weight than a lack of reference; it is probably one of the fundamental tenants of wikipedia. That in itself disqualifies the footnote. Maranello10 (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey, @Mclarenfan17 Apologies for not taking it to the talk page initially, I thought it was too small an issue to bother people. Maranello10 (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Maranello10. In my opinion the footnote doesn't add anything to the article, the physics as to why weight is used rather volume don't belong on an article which is about a sporting season. I've also looked for a citation for this statement several times, I couldn't find anywhere where it said that F1 regs had adopted the use of weight because volume of liquids can change. I know that F1 regs use weight and I know that the volume of a liquid can change with temperture but I can't find any source which links the 2 statements, Mclarenfan17, above you said The truth of the statement gives more weight to the argument for inclusion than the lack of reference does to the argument for exclusion., WP:VNT would disagree, can you prove that F1 changed to wieght rather than volume for this reason? Therefore I am in favour of removing this (I have actually been eyeing it for some time) espically given that this piece of information isn't necessary to understand any of the rest of the content. As I pointed out above I fail to see how the statement contributes anything to the article besides word count.
SSSB (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Mclarenfan17: I would've pinged you both if I didn't think you'd be watching the talk page, but you're basically regulars here so I didn't bother.

@Maranello10: I'm in complete agreement. While it is true that the allowed weight of fuel has changed, the method of measurement, which is what the footnote refers to, has not. What would make more sense would be to identify the year the FIA switched to using weight over volume and then putting something into the Formula One article. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

A reader should not have to read multiple articles to make sense of this one. That's why the explanation is written as a footnote rather than integrated into the prose: it's a supplementary piece of information which is there to aid the reader without becoming the focus of the paragraph. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: They wouldn't need to read multiple articles to make sense of this one because that line isn't necessary to understanding the article. A reader can understand the article without it, we don't need to give an explanation for why everything is the way it is every time we mention it. I see no footnote explaining why Monaco isn't 305+km for example. 3 of us think the footnote should be removed and you are the only one of thinks it is necessary. Maybe you should admit that this is a WP:SNOW situation for you?
SSSB (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

My main objection is that this is an element common to multiple seasons of F1, so it shouldn't appear in the article about just one season. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey — that's a perfectly acceptable point, but this article has a specific rule change related to fuel. As fuel is normally a liquid (and indeed goes into the car in liquid form), the reader could or would reasonably expect that the measurements be given in litres. But the fuel is specifically measured by weight, not volume. An explanation for this is needed. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: I disagree. The specific rule change is about the allowed weight of the fuel, not the way fuel is calculated. That way has been in place for a while, so no explanation is necessary on this particular article. Perhaps for the main Formula One article, but not here. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: I agree that a user would expect litres but this is why the concept of units exists. I would disagree with the fact that the choice of units requires an explanation. This article is about Formula One in 2019 not about the physics of liquids. Therefore an explanation of a why fuel is measured the way it is isn't needed as it is a system which has been in place for several years. There is nothing new in the way fuel is calculated. To quote Sheldon Cooper, I accept your premise; I reject your conclusion.
SSSB (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: I would go one step further and say it isn't even required in a general formula 1 article, let alone one that is season-specific and sporting. I'd imagine the vast majority of readers who would be interested in the technical regulations of formula 1 would have an idea that liquids can be measured in weight rather than volume, and why this might be favourable. It isn't that insightful a point, and only a tiny minority would be catered to, if that minority exists at all. Maranello10 (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You're assuming that the audience has enough familiarity with the subject that they have a sound knowledge of the technical regulations before they read the article. The problem is that you're not taking into account newcomers to the sport—you're writing the article for established fans and only for established fans. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that is the case at all. It's enough that we say what the unit of measurement is. The fact that it differs from how people put fuel in their car is irrelevant. I think we have a pretty solid consensus in support of not including the note, and further discussion would seem unproductive at this point. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Doubt it's the case all that you want; you haven't shown a shred of evidence. Not to mention the fact that you're writing the article for an audience that you're assuming has a similar amount of knowledge to you, which is unencyclopaedic—you're turning Wikipedia into a fan site. Mclarenfan17 (talk)\

I don't need to show a shred of evidence. The burden is upon you to make a case for inclusion, and you have failed to do so. You are, in fact, the only voice calling for this footnote. Again, this article is specific to the 2019 season, whereas the fuel measurement method is not specific to the 2019 season. It makes more sense to put an explanation in the Formula One article and then link "fuel levels" (for example) to the anchor associated with that explanation. The same can be done for previous years. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: if I were writing for people who had a similar amount of knowledge to me this article would be a lot more detailed and complicated in terminology and analysis. I also fail to see how you can accuse us of turning it into a fan site, that accusation has no basis in fact. We have told you this time and time again. We don't think this note is necessary to the understanding of the article, we don't think this note should be here. It is clear to me that this discussion is now starting to go round in circles. Either back down and accept that this is a discussion you have lost or I shall ask an experienced member of WP:F1 (probably DH85868993 if he consents) to close this discussion officially (in line with wp:closing) as it would appear that we are all repeating the same arguments and getting nowhere and with your history of being painfully stuborn I don't see this discussion ever archiving a unanimous verdict.
SSSB (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: I am in complete agreement with @SSSB, this is going in circles. I second that you either concede the point or it is time to get the discussion closed officially. Maranello10 (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

"I also fail to see how you can accuse us of turning it into a fan site, that accusation has no basis in fact"

Because you're making assumptions about the audience's schema (their prior knowledge). You're assuming that they already know about the way fuel is measured and why, which is specific technical knowledge. And you can't make that assumption; I've been following the sport since the mid-1990s and only knew about this circa 2015. It's a minor point, but it can become increasingly esoteric. Thus, the audience for the article is becoming established fans of the sport to the exclusion of people who are casual fans or newcomers. Hence, a fan site—a site made for fans. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: Alright, you have gotten the last word in, said your point several times and we are not going to agree, but you are in the minority, so can you concede the point or is it getting closed formally? Maranello10 (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: we aren't assuming that they know why it's measured in kilos. We're saying that they don't need to why it's measured in kilos. It is irrelevent to this article specifically as it isn't a new introduction and not needed to understand the rest of the article. And just to be clear I didn't know why it was measured in kilos until the edit war started, but I dont care because it isn't needed to understand the article or in fact any other part of the sport. I'm also going to ask DH85868993 to close this discussion as it is going in circles.
SSSB (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It would seem that there is a clear (though sadly not unanimous) consensus to remove the footnote from the article which I have just done.
SSSB (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2019

After the Belgian GP, in the Constructors' section, the results of Verstappen and Albon should be the other way around to keep Verstappen's results in one row and Gasly/Albon's results in the other. 85.118.77.80 (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not how the table is organised. For each Grand Prix the best result is listed above the second result for each team regardless of whose result it was.
SSSB (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

How is the Constructor champ for each race determined?

Would Mercedes be the Constructor’s champ of Italy since they got more points than Ferrari? Benica11 (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Benica11: there is no such thing as a constructors champion for Italy, there is only a constructors champion for the season. (Although the constructor which won the race (Ferrari for Italy) take home a race winners trophy).
SSSB (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: I think I meant how the winning constructor each race is determined. Is it simply the constructor who's driver wins the race? Benica11 (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Benica11: yes.
SSSB (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2019

On the World Constructors' Championship standings portion of the article, the points for the Alfa Romeo Racing-Ferrari team are on the wrong positions for the Italian Grand Prix. Kimi Räikkönen has been given the 9th position and Antonio Giovinazzi has the 15th position while in the race itself Räikkönen was 15th and Giovinazzi was 9th. The positions have been correctly given in the World Drivers' Championship standings and you can see the right positions on the official Formula 1 website as well https://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/2019/races/1013/italy/race-result.html Torak49 (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Torak49 (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done, the table is sorted with the best result of each team above the worst, not one row per driver. Therefore it is correct.
SSSB (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

2019

russell and kubica to go for all race finishes.

over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.205.191.34 (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Haas F1 Team

We must follow the current last FIA Entry List if Haas left Rich Energy. Entry list for Singapore Grand Prix will be only with "Haas F1 Team" without Rich Energy. For this reason, in the table of Entries, it must to appear as only with "Haas F1 Team" name with note 2 which means that Haas, until Italian Grand Prix, entered as "Rich Energy Haas F1 Team" and from Singapore Grand Prix only with "Haas F1 Team", because they left the title sponsor.--87.17.106.213 (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Haas contested the majority of the season with a title sponsor. The entries table should reflect all of the sources, not just the most recent one. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

We added until Italian Grand Prix all entry list. We'll do the same also for the remaining races. Haas will enter with a different name, why not we don't put it without sponsor? The note 2 has already explained the reason about the sponsor and FIA will update the main entry list, removing the title sponsor.--87.17.106.213 (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no need for two entrant names. We don't do it with Ferrari, so why do it with Haas? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we must put Haas with two entrants. From Singapore Grand Prix Haas will enter without title sponsor. I think in the current table entries Haas must appear without main sponsor because FIA will update the main document on its website before the next race. There is the note 2 which explains what Haas did until ITA GP and from SGP GP.--87.17.106.213 (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the 2019 championship, not just one or two races in it. Haas spent 13 of 21 races with a title sponsor, roughly 66% of the year. As they had the title sponsor more often than not, the table should show them with a title sponsor and a note explaining the change—just as we do with Ferrari, who only had a title sponsor (Mission Winnow) for a few races and have spent most of the season without one. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a main source for Entries, this, and the whole table must follow what is showed in the link. In fact, FIA has already removed the title sponsor for Haas on the list. This is my opinion.--87.17.106.213 (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

And your opinion is prioritising only the most recent source. The existence of that FIA source does not invalidate every other source used in the article, and to rely on it misrepresents the subject because Haas did have a title sponsor for 13 races. We need to balance every available source, not recreate the one that was published most recently. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I think is not important how many races Haas did with the title sponsor. So, the recentism is also the switch Albon-Gasly, the last one change of the table entries list; in fact we did these edits because in the last two entrants (BEL and ITA) there were changing about drivers, and we follow it, moving Albon and Gasly in they respectively new teams. I think also this are recentisms. So, why we are following it for the switch drivers and not for Haas' main sponsor?--87.17.106.213 (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there an entry list for Singapore yet? If not, this whole discussion is premature. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not yet, of course, but it is gonna be shown as "Haas F1 Team" because FIA has already removed the title sponsor on its main entry list.--87.17.106.213 (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Until the entry list comes out, we must leave things as they are. It is possible (though I would think unlikely) that Haas will unveil a new title sponsor in time to make the Singapore GP entry list. If that does not happen, and the entry is indeed listed as "Haas F1 Team" as expected, I will support your proposed change. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be honest I agree with 87.17.106.213 though for different reasons. I have always seen the entrant name as composing of two parts, sponser-constructor, the constructor part will remain the same for all 21 GP (or all GP they enter) the sponser part will only be present for 13 GP. To me it makes sense to only mention the base/constructor name in the entrant column and then say in the note that through part of the season they raced with a sponser attached to the base name. And before you accuse me of WP:RECENTISM I would argue to keep it as Renault F1 Team if Renault had picked up a title sponser from Spain. But I also agree that it should be left as is until the next entry list comes out.
SSSB (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks, so we wait for the next entry list, probably coming out on 19 September.--87.17.106.213 (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB:

"To me it makes sense to only mention the base/constructor name in the entrant column and then say in the note that through part of the season they raced with a sponser attached to the base name."

Then why have the entrant column at all if sponsors can drop in and out over the course of the season? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: firstly if your going to quote me please refrain from taking my comments out of context as the above one is. Secondly I am opposed to mentioning sponsors anywhere at all, whether it be entrant name or the sponsors sections in the Grand Prix articles, it's not encylopedic. I don't believe the Entrant column should be there at all as I don't think it adds any useful content especially as no one refers to the Entrant name anyway. But that is not the subject of the discussion. But to answer your question directly, the proposal doesn't impact on the use of the Entrant column for the reasons I explained above. There is still a note explaining that they raced part of the season with a slightly different entrant name so the Entrant column still serves it's full use and displays all the relevant information.
SSSB (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Haas has presented a new livery for Singapore Grand Prix, probably they will use it until Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. This means that Haas will enter the next race as "Haas F1 Team" and for this they will not have a new title sponsor until the end of the season. Of course, I'm waiting for the next entry list name for USA Haas entrant, probably online here on Thursday 19 September, because all formers entry list were online on a Thursday day before the Grand Prix weekend.--87.17.106.213 (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Singapore Grand Prix Entry List is online. Haas entered as "Haas F1 Team". I think in the entries table the main sponsor Rich Energy must be remove.--79.44.43.71 (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I’ve added the entry list to the note. I’m not sure whether we keep Haas F1 Team or Rich Energy Haas F1 Team though. I’ll sit on the fence.
JamesVilla44 (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The Singapore Entry List must be to put on "Official entry lists:" notes, following the others race.--79.44.43.71 (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Did by @SSSB: user, but in the Singapore GP entry list note there is a overlinking FIA. Then, notes 10 and 11 are the same, why?--79.44.43.71 (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

New table proposal

@SSSB: easy, I'm on your side here. I, too, think the table is excessive and unwieldy. It it were up to me, this:

Entrant	Constructor	Chassis	Power unit	Race drivers			Free Practice drivers
				No.	Driver name	Rounds	No.	Driver name
Alfa Romeo Racing	Alfa Romeo Racing-Ferrari	C38	Ferrari 064	7 99	Kimi Räikkönen Antonio Giovinazzi	1–14 1–14	—

Would instead look something like this:

Constructor	Chassis	Power unit	Race drivers
			No.	Driver name	Rounds
Alfa Romeo Racing-Ferrari	C38	Ferrari	7	Kimi Räikkönen	1–14
			99	Antonio Giovinazzi	1–14

I think we are far too quick to use the table as a place to store details that are only of passing relevance and/or could be better expressed through prose. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Simplify, then add lightness.
— Colin Chapman, Lotus Cars

I like the idea of simplifying the table, although this proposal perhaps cuts a little deeper than I would. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

There are cases though were the entrant name is cleary different to the entrant name for other reason than a sponsor. Only last year we had Racing Point Force India competing under the Force India-Mercedes constructor name. They replaced an earlier entrant using that constructor name and the entrant column is what actually allowed is to distinguish them.Tvx1 12:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey and Tvx1: tables should summarise content and supplement prose. They should not replace prose. The specific power unit designation is largely irrelevant; the reader is not going to know the difference between a Ferrari 062 and Ferrari 063. It's only really notable when a team uses year-old engines, which is a detail that should be explained in prose. The designation is really a detail for the chassis article.

While free practice drivers can theoretically affect a Grand Prix (ie by crashing heavily), they're probably not as important as a race driver. Again, they can be summarised in prose.

As for entrants, the Force India situation was unusual to say the least and absolutely needed prose to explain it. But that does not mean that we should burden every championship article with a redundant column. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that the Entrant and constructor columns should be merged and simply list the common name for the entrant-engine. (I.e. Racing Point Force India-Mercedes or Haas-Ferrari etc.) The constructor can easily ne identified by the name of the Chassis and (99% of the time) entrant name. Any other technicalties can easily be dealt with in prose. We don't need to striclty follow the entries documents supplied by the FIA.
SSSB (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: I think this works just fine:

Constructor	Chassis	Power unit	Race drivers
			No.	Driver name	Rounds
Alfa Romeo Racing-Ferrari	C38	Ferrari	7	Kimi Räikkönen	1–14
			99	Antonio Giovinazzi	1–14

That's how the constructor appears in the WCC matrix, and additional information can be footnoted. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The Force India case wasn't the only one where the entrant column had value beyond naming sponsors. In 2015 and 2016 we had a situation with Manor using different entrant and constructor names. In 2012 the entrant is what allowed us to distinguish two different constructors named Lotus(-Renault) and so and so on. And I'm not even going to start about earlier season when numerous different entrants entered with the same car constructed by the same constructors. This column certainly has value.Tvx1 21:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

All of which should be expressed in prose first. Nor does it explain why the 2019 article should do something to meet the needs of another article before meeting its own. Doing something a little differently year on year is not a disaster—look at the nomenclature of pre-1984 articles, which are "19XX Formula One season" and compare them to post-1983 articles, which are "19/20XX Formula One World Championship". A significant difference, but not one that broke the articles. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear my proposal is virtually the same as Mclarenfan17's and would make the 2018 entrants table look like this;

Teams	Chassis	Power unit	Drivers
			Number	Name	Rounds
Ferrari	SF71H	Ferrari 062 EVO	We all know how they are, I'm not going to fill them out here.
Force India	VJM11	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+
Racing Point Force India	VJM11	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+
Haas	VF-18	Ferrari 062 EVO
McLaren	MCL33	Renault R.E.18
Mercedes	F1 W09 EQ Power+	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+
Red Bull Racing	RB14	TAG Heuer
Renault	R.S.18	Renault R.E.18
Sauber	C37	Ferrari 062 EVO
Scuderia Toro Rosso	STR13	Honda RA618H
Williams	FW41	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+

Firstly I don't think the constructor column should show which power unit a team uses as that is already defined in a seperate column. But that can be discussed later. This format covers all the esentialls and differentiates between Force India (FI) and Racing Point Force India (RPFI) without us being oblidged to include all the title sponsers in the table as well. This would remove the effectivly redundent Entrant column without causing potential confusion with the RPFI vs. FI. As for Tvx1's point that constructor and Entrant names aren't always the same. I don't think that gives the column value. I don't see why the exact name of the Entrant/Constructor should be specified, the common name should be enough.
SSSB (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: the constructor name is given as, say, "McLaren-Renault" because that's who the points are awarded to. Ferrari are simply called "Ferrari" because they build the chassis and the engine, whereas McLaren build their chassis and buy the engine from Renault.

The engine designation is pretty meaningless unless we're talking about a notable engine such as the Cosworth DFV. Honestly, I couldn't tell you the difference between a Ferrari 062 and Ferrari 063, and I don't think the absence of the designation matters. It's really a detail for an individual car article, and the few instances where it is notable—such as using a year-old engine—are better explained through prose.

I don't see why the constructor column needs to be bold, shaded and centre-aligned, either. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why the constructor column needs to be bold, shaded and centre-aligned, either. becuase it is a row header. Mclaren-Renault vs. Mclaren is really a minor point, I can live with it being either way, I also don't care about whether we specify engine specification, actually now I think about it could be better if they weren't. Really the above table was to indicate the combination of constructor/entrant column, I just kept the rest as is.
SSSB (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a row header because it's not heading a row. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm on board with any proposals that can simplify the table. And while consistency from year to year is a laudable goal, there is no reason why the table cannot evolve annually in the same way as the rules of the sport evolve annually. We don't need to be chained to past methodology. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey: it might be worth taking this to the WikiProject for a full discussion. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. I'm generally happy establishing a local consensus for things, and then applying them to the wider project if they work out. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It definitely needs to go project-wide as it could become a new standard. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey guys, can anyone please guide me to the discussion in the Wikiproject? i need to know the consensus to apply changes on the Persian version of the article. thanks. Jeeputer (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Jeeputer, it's at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Entry table proposal.
SSSB (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

SSSB Appreciated :) Jeeputer (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Some edits to do

• Remove FIA from Singapore Entry List note, it's a over info for the note because there is already Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile include in it.
• Remove note number 11 (it's the same of note number 10). I don't see the differents from these two notes. Same info.
• Haas entered the first 14 rounds as "Rich Energy Haas F1 Team", but following the termination of the sponsporship agreement with Rich Energy after the Italian Grand Prix, they are expected to enter the remaining races as "Haas F1 Team". I think this is the best sentence to explain the fact.

Thanks.--79.44.43.71 (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

In relation to your first bullet. The first instance details the name of the website we retrived the information from and the second details who published the document, really they should all have it twice with the publisher wikilinked and not the website. In relation to your second bullet point, they aren't the same. One shows "Rich Energy Haas F1 Team" and the other shows "Haas F1 Team" if you still think it should be removed for other reasons you will have to come back. And in relation to your third point I have removed the repeation of Haas.
SSSB (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

First point. Why we added FIA only for Singapore Entry List note and not for the rest? Second point. Ok, you're right. I did not see the info link, even I was not pointing for that. Third point. A comma is important, for grammar sentence before "but" and then "Prix". However, if you write 14 rounds, it means that Haas used Rich Energy until ITA and only after ITA they left the sponsor and not, for example, on Thursday, before SGP race, when the Entry List got out.--79.44.43.71 (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

WCC standings after Russia

According to the official standings released by the FIA, Mercedes has 571 points as of after the Russian GP, not 570 as it says on this page. --BAdamn (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

​ Done by 82.53.45.106, thank you for pointing that out.
SSSB (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

No Russell DNF in Japan

The first provisional classification listed Russell as DNF, but the current one does not anymore, so the dagger in the WDC table should be removed. 90.47.147.110 (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I just removed it. As far as I can see, Russell did indeed finish the race, albeit two laps down. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Mission Winnow

The main Ferrari's title sponsor, has officially got back from the Japanese until the end of the season. On entries table we have to swap the note, writing that Ferrari entered in Australia and from Canada until Russia only as "Scuderia Ferrari", including entry list for those races. According on the main entry list on FIA official website, the full name for Ferrari is showing as Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow.--79.43.102.62 (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. The convention regarding this is laid out in #Haas F1 Team (soon to be archived here). In short the majority of the session will be contested as Scuderia Ferrari. Changing the entry table to say Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow will be WP:RECENTISM. Further Scuderia Ferrari part applies to all races whereas the Mission Winnow part does not.
SSSB (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I disagree with you. We have to follow what the latest updated document is shown, as we did for Haas before SGP Grand Prix.--79.43.102.62 (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not why Haas is listed the way it is, if you had read the thread I linked for you, you would know that. Also you appear to have ignored my comment regarding WP:RECENTISM. You will have to come up with something more concrete than I disagree with no accompanying reason other than an incorrect assumption regarding previous activity on the page because otherwise no one will be persuaded.
SSSB (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, but I've always thought that the main source must be the same also in this article, according on latest news of the document.--79.43.102.62 (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If you aren't going to explain why then this discussion can't go anywhere.
SSSB (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't insist anymore, stop. However, there is a current mistake. Mexican entry list is missing inside Ferrari's note which explains where the Scuderia used Mission Winnow.--79.43.102.62 (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done
SSSB (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)