Talk:2021 Formula One World Championship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Entrants list

According to an article on F1.com, only Sergio Pérez and Esteban Ocon are signed for 2021. Does this override the less-reliable sources provided for Charles Leclerc and George Russell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5225C (talk • contribs) 12:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@5225C: the short awnser is no as those sources are still reliable. Although the Leclerc source didn't actually say he has a 2021 contract and so I will remove him shortly, as for Russell, there are several other sources which also say that he will be there in 2021 and I am therefore inclined to think that f1.com are a little behind as opposed to several other sources being wrong
SSSB (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

A big, empty table

This team and driver table is big and empty, full of white space, missing flagicons and "TBA"s. Given that 2021 is still over a year away, it is likely to remain a big, empty table for quite some time—months, most likely.

Therefore I have introduced this format to the article: a simplified version of the table that removes most of the white space and keeps the missing flagicons and "TBA"s to a minimum. I suggest keeping this format for the foreseeable future, at least until the full grid starts taking shape. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

formula1.com

Why is every single source that is being added to this article coming from formula1.com? And why are perfectly-valid sources from a range of third-party publishers being replaced by articles posted on formula1.com? We need a variety of sources, and formula1.com is about as close as you can get to a self-published source without actually being a self-published source. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Because f1.com sources are high qualify and it's the main website people use. Feel free to replace a source if you find a better one. But only if it is better. Don't replace sources only because the original one was from f1.com. And you are confusing self-published and primary again. F1.com is no way near self published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSB (talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"Because f1.com sources are high qualify"

It wasn't that long ago that we avoided it like the plague.

"it's the main website people use"

That doesn't mean that we should flood an article with sources from it and only it. There was no reason to replace the source that was already there.

"Don't replace sources only because the original one was from f1.com"

Sources should not be replaced with something from formula1.com just because a source from formula1.com is available.

"And you are confusing self-published and primary again. F1.com is no way near self published."

It's a lot closer to self-published than Autosport/motorsport.com, Sky Sports F1, Speedcafe, the BBC, ESPN or the dozens of third-party sources available. Besides, formula1.com is owned by Liberty Media who run the sport. It's too close a relationship to rely on them exclusively. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Formula1.com is NOT a self-published source. I recall you making similar accusations in the past about other sources, I think, and it's pretty clear you just don't understand the concept of a self-published source. Lazer-kitty (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

And I think it's pretty clear that you don't understand the concept of civility given how aggressively you interact with others. How do you expect to change hearts and minds when your attitude is "everyone else is an idiot"? You had an opportunity to make a meaning change by participating in this discussion. Instead, all you managed to do was elicit a groan. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's weird how you constantly report other editors to the admins for supposedly attacking you and yet you fly off the handle when I simply point out you've misunderstood a policy. You need to calm down, dude. Lazer-kitty (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"you fly off the handle when I simply point out you've misunderstood a policy"

That's not what you did. This is what SSSB said:

"you are confusing self-published and primary again. F1.com is no way near self published"

And this is what you said:

"it's pretty clear you just don't understand the concept of a self-published source"

Your choice of language is far more aggressive, and unnecessarily so. You're not "pointing out that I misunderstood a policy"; you're going on the offensive. Like I said, you project an attitude that you think everyone else is an idiot. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop. Lazer-kitty (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

After you. This is precisely what I'm talking about: you're needlessly aggressive in every interaction. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's always everyone else's fault, isn't it? Lazer-kitty (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No, just yours. Why do you think I have constructive relationships with other editors? It's because I don't assume they're idiots. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you, though? Lazer-kitty (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Empty seats

Right now, we do not know the status of some seats, such as the second seat at Red Bull. Is it vacant? Is there a contract that has not been announced? We cannot tell, so we cannot include it. On the other hand, we know the second seat at Renault is vacant. Ricciardo cannot fill it because he is at McLaren.

Just because Ferrari and McLaren have completed their line-ups, that does not mean that every team has to have two rows. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lazer-kitty: "Looks better" is not a valid reason for restoring this version of the article. By listing those seats as "TBA", you imply that they are vacant in the same way that Ricciardo's Renault seat is vacant. However, none of the available sources confirm that the seats are vacant or occupied, so we cannot include them. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not implying that. You're assuming that. Lazer-kitty (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. I have read the sources and none of them give details of the second seat. How can we say they are vacant when we have no evidence of it? Look at the Mexican GP: we know it is under contract in 2021, but we don't know its status in 2022. So rather than list it as under contract or out of contract, ee omit it from the article becausr we do not know and cannot say one way or the other. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't say vacant. It says TBA. Lazer-kitty (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

In the case of the Renault seat, that "TBA" means that it's vacant. In the case of the Red Bull seat, that "TBA" means something else. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

TBA means to be announced, and nothing more. Tboa talk. 02:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

1) We can clearly prove that one seat is vacant. We cannot prove that the other seats are. What you're suggesting is that we use "TBA" to refer to a vacant seat and to refer to a seat for which there is no information without making that distinction clear to the reader.

2) None of the sources provided (except the Ricciardo one) indicate whether or not a seat is vacant, and so do not prove the article's claims. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

By definition a seat is vacant if it is unoccupied. Therefore there is a vacant seat at Renault in much the same way that there is a vacant seat at Red Bull. The vacancy of a race seat is not determined by if the incumbent driver has a contract with another team (as Mclarenfan17 incorrectly suggests) but rather vacancy is determined by if the team has a contract for a driver to race in their car. Now I really dont see the benefit of including vacant seats. The table heading makes that each team should have two drivers so there is no need for empty rows. Therefore Renault should have 1 row (for Ocon) and similarly red bull should have 1 row (for verstappen). Readers can easily determine from reading prose that the incumbent of Renault's second seat is leaving team. Therefore is therefore no need to passive-aggressivly point this out in the table with an empty row then the seat has exactly the same status as the 2 Mercedes seats. Equally if we choose to point out 1 vacant seat (in this case the vacant seat at Renault Mclarenfan17 is so keen to include) we must include all vacant seats (such as the second seat at Red Bull) for consistancy within the table. There cant be picking and choosing of which vacant seats we want to include. As I said before, this is simply passive-aggressive.
SSSB (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. There should not be any empty TBA rows regardless of whether there is definitely a vacant seat (as in with Renault) or possibly a vacant seat (as in with Red Bull). The normal convention for years has been that when it is this far in advance only make confirmed (as in with a valid contract) drivers visible and don't bulk the table with redundant rows. Then we flesh out the driver rows once more of the table is confirmed, such as when the teams submit entries for 2021 in the latter part of this year. MetalDylan (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, no that is no true at all. Our convention is not at all to only include cells in the drivers column for those drivers which have been contracted for the season in question if you look at the first versions of the 2019 and 2020 articles, you'll see that we had two rows for each included constructor right from the outset. Seats which weren't contracted yet would be included as TBA straight away. This obsession to only include rows for seats for which a driver is contracted is something brand new for this article. And I honestly don't understand the problem. I really don't see what is so desperately wrong with the article as it is presented right now.Tvx1 11:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Folks, TBA means To Be Announced. That's it. It doesn't mean any of the other things you are making up solely to justify your opinion on the styling of the table. Lazer-kitty (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I personally have not claimed TBA to mean otherwise. I actually agree with you on keeping the current format of the table.Tvx1 14:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I obviously nested that under the wrong comment, lmao. Lazer-kitty (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Have a look at WP:THREAD if you’re unsure how to ensure how to make your posts to be replies to the correct previous post(s).Tvx1 12:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

If you've got a wiki policy for how to get my brain working again during a pandemic, that'd be appreciated too :) Lazer-kitty (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a wiki policy for that, but what has worked for me to keep my head clear during this pandemic is to drastically limit the amount of news bulletins I watch, read or listen to.Tvx1 16:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hooooo boy you better believe I'm right there with you. Too much avoidable stress. Stay safe. Lazer-kitty (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: what are you doing? On the one hand, you argue that each team should have two rows even when no information about that seat is available ... and then you remove references that demonstrate that each team has two seats? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Quoting myself: I really dont see the benefit of including vacant seats. But this is irrelevant.

I haven't removed the reference. The reference is at the top of the table. I have removed the unnecessary repetition of the citation. We dont need to re-cite the same information 4 times in the space of 12 lines of information.
SSSB (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense to me. Look at any passage of prose, particularly under the regulation changes, and you'll see we use the same sources multiple times in each paragraph (especially when other sources are subsequently used in the paragraph). Each use of the source corresponds with a new point in the paragraph. In the same way, each row of the table amounts to a new point that needs to be supported by a source. I can't realy see how the inclusion of a source is both important and redundant at the same time. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Each row of the table is only a new point if a driver is contracted with the team. Each TBA in the table is not a new point. Each team having two seats is one point. You don't need to recite the same point 4 times. What you are arguing for amounts to WP:REPCITE. We dont need to cite that every team can have two driver 4 times in such a short space of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSB (talk • contribs) 08:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"Each row of the table is only a new point if a driver is contracted with the team."

In 2020, Red Bull entered Max Verstappen and Alexander Albon in their two seats. At the time of writing, they have announced Max Verstappen will race in 2021, with the second seat currently vacant. That represents a change between 2020 and 2021, and thus needs a cite. Furthermore, the prose only says that teams are expected to enter two cars. It does not mean that they will. Ergo, someone with no understanding of the sport could infer that Red Bull do not intend or are not required to enter two cars, making the empty row without a reference unnecessary. In order to be correct based on the citations as they currently are, the table should have empty rows with citations or no empty rows. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If teams are required to enter the two cars the prose at the top of the table (along with the reference if necessary) should be changed to reflect this and the citations from racefans are not necessary. If teams are not required to enter two cars then the citations are still not necessary and the prose that all teams are expected to enter two cars then someone with no understanding of the sport could infer that Red Bull do not intend or are not required to enter two cars is a perfectally valid inference but we can still have two rows because (as the reference points out) they are expected to enter two cars.

At the time of writing, they have announced Max Verstappen will race in 2021, with the second seat currently vacant. That represents a change between 2020 and 2021, and thus needs a cite. - that doesn't represent a change at all. We don't need a ref to state a seat is vacant because only Red Bull are able to tell us if a seat is vacant. Racefans have no way of knowing if the other Red Bull seat is vacant. For all we know Albon signed a contract to drive for them in 2021 and it simply hasn't been anounced yet. The Racefans source only tells which seats have been anounced, not those which have been filled.

And even if Racefans could tell us about contracts that had been signed before they were announced that still doesn't mean that we should blindly repeat citations at every oppurtunity, The citation at the top of the table is enough to cover all the TBAs without needlessly repiting the citation. In the same way that the prose about regulation changes doesn't have a citiation at the end of every sentence. The table doesn't need a citaation at the end of every row.
SSSB (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

F1 teams actually aren't allowed to enter just one car in a grand prix outside of exceptional circumstances, like someone dying, so to suggest to "someone with no understanding of the sport" that Red Bull might only enter Verstappen (for example) is a pretty blatant lie. Lazer-kitty (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"F1 teams actually aren't allowed to enter just one car in a grand prix outside of exceptional circumstances, like someone dying"

Or maybe a global pandemic like the one we're currently living through. Several have voiced concerns that the pandemic jeopardises their long-term futures, and some racing teams around the world have already been forced to close. It is conceivable that the FIA could amend the sporting regulations to change the number of entries, enabling teams to continue racing. Furthermore, the article notes that teams are expected to enter two cars, which leaves open the possibility of changes.

"so to suggest to "someone with no understanding of the sport" that Red Bull might only enter Verstappen (for example) is a pretty blatant lie."

Oh, look. More aggression.

First of all, you're twisting my words. I never suggested that the article should say that Red Bull should only enter Verstappen. I only said that right now, Red Bull have two drivers in 2020 and one driver and a vacant seat for 2021. A seat that was occupied is currently considered vacant. If Red Bull announce Albon will stay in 2021 tomorrow, that does not change the fact that the seat is currently empty. Articles about future events should be written with one eye on a time when they become current, but with the other eye on how they stand now. If you have some evidence that the second seat is not currently vacant, please share it with us. After all, this source makes it clear that Albon signed with Red Bull for 2020. It makes no mention of their 2021 plans.

Secondly, I know that teams are required to enter two cars. You know that teams are required to enter two cars. But the average man or woman on the street with no knowledge of the sport does not know that. We are writing an encyclopaedia, which means our potential audience is anybody. Articles should be written so that someone with no understanding of the subject can click "Random Page" and be brought here, at which point they read the article and understand the subject. You are banking on the audience already being familiar with the subject—knowing the rules about entries—which means you are treating this as a fansite, not an encyclopaedia. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, look. More aggression.

It would be really nice if you could stop with this stuff. I'm not saying this to try and start a fight with you, I want that to be clear. I'm saying it because you make it very, very difficult to stay on subject when you treat every single statement like you're being attacked. I assure you that is not the case. I am just here to discuss an F1 article. That's it. If I have insulted you, I apologize. Lazer-kitty (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"It would be really nice if you could stop with this stuff. I'm not saying this to try and start a fight with you, I want that to be clear. I'm saying it because you make it very, very difficult to stay on subject when you treat every single statement like you're being attacked."

Well, you accused me of lying and twisted my words to make it look like I said something that I did not. What did you expect was going to happen? Perhaps I would stop acting as if I were being attacked if you actually stopped attacking me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17:, until such a time that the FIA announce that they are allowing an exception to the "two cars per team" in response to the pandemic stating so in this article constituted WP:CRYSTAL. The article should therefore be updated to say that "teams are required to enter two drivers" with a corrosponding source to the regulations. Then no-one will be under the impression that Red Bull may decide to enter one car (unless of course the FIA announce an exception to that rule in which case the article should make that clear, something like Teams are legally required to enter two cars, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic the FIA relaxed this rule.

I have no evidence to suggest that the second Red Bull seat is no longer vacant, but the point I was making is that we don't need evidence telling us it is vacant. Finding sources to confirm vacancies is borderline silly and unnecessary. But if you insist on doind so you only need to cite the source once, at the top of the table. Again, for me citing the same source 3 times in a small table, and again at the top of the table constitutes WP:REPCITE.

Now, concerning this feud between yourself and Lazer-kitty. Lazer-kitty, I have to agree with Mclarenfan17 that your response was unnecessarily agressive, you may not have meant it to be so, but it was. You basiclly accused Mclarenfan17 of lying, but you didn't know that he knew that rule, I didn't know that rule. Also that's not a ,ie becuase someone with little to no knowledge wouldn't know that it's a rule and might not know that the status quo is enter two drivers. Mclarenfan17, just becuase you feel that an editor was being aggresive to you doesn't mean you have to be aggresive back. Oh, look. More aggression. is just as bad as is a pretty blatant lie. If you think that another's comment was agressive point it out on thier user talk page and expalin, without being aggresive yourself, why you thought is was agrresive. Don't clutter the discussion with your petty squabbling.
SSSB (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no squabble and no feud. I simply stated that to suggest to readers that there is a significant chance of teams entering single cars would be a lie, and I stand by that statement. This is not an attempt to attack or denigrate another editor. It is a statement of fact regarding presenting content in a way that conflicts with F1's rules. Furthermore, perhaps editors who aren't familiar with the rules regarding team entries should take a step back from trying to dictate how those entries are formatted.

I have made it clear on multiple occasions that I mean no ill will in any of my comments. If I continue to be attacked in this regard then we will have to get the admins involved. Please, for the love of god, just discuss F1. Lazer-kitty (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"I simply stated that to suggest to readers that there is a significant chance of teams entering single cars would be a lie, and I stand by that statement."

You're right, it is a lie. But it's also not what I said. I simply pointed out that based on the current wording of the article, someone with no knowledge of the sport could come to the conclusion that teams are not required to enter two cars. You have misinterpreted this to mean something else entirely.

"perhaps editors who aren't familiar with the rules regarding team entries should take a step back from trying to dictate how those entries are formatted"

I don't think anybody else here believes that I don't understand the rules. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Alonso's number

Alonso's car number is currently listed as "TBA" with a footnote stating that while #14 is still reserved for him (as per the three-season rule), he may elect to change it. Now, my question is: doesn't that hold true for every driver? I mean, if we were to go stricly by WP:CRYSTAL, then all numbers should be listed as "TBA" until we have an official entry list for the season, since every driver has the option to change it. If, instead, we want to keep doing what we currently do (which is perfectly reasonable), then I don't see why Alonso should be treated differently. Any thoughts? Luxic (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Luxic: that's not correct. #14 is not reserved for him (nor does the note state that, I will clarify the note regardless) it is because it is no longer reserved for him that he has the option to choose another number and another driver has the option of picking 14.
SSSB (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Under my interprententation of the rules, only Alonso can change his number as he has not participated in an event for two entire consecutive seasons.

9.2 under the Sporting Regulations: "Prior to the start of the 2014 World Championship season race numbers will be permanently allocated to drivers by ballot, such numbers must then be used by that driver during every Formula One World Championship Event he takes part in throughout his career in Formula 1. A driver’s career in Formula 1 will be deemed to have ended if he does not participate in an Event for two entire consecutive Championship seasons. Any new drivers, either at the start of or during a season, will also be allocated a permanent number in the same way." FozzieHey (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I stand corrected. Thanks for the heads up. Luxic (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Including engine names

I don’t see the point in including “Renault E-Tech” if we don’t do it for anyone else, @Island92: FozzieHey (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

That's because we don't know the other engine names yet, while we do know from the Alpine press release that the 2021 Renault engine will use the E-Tech name.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

We still don’t know the full engine name though, this is just an engine brand. FozzieHey (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Why does that make it ineligible for inclusion?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Well what benefit does it add? Why don’t we just wait until the actual engine names are released? FozzieHey (talk) 08:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Why should we need to. What is the benefit of waiting for the publication of an arbitary name.
SSSB (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Well at least the engine name provides some benefit to the reader, I don’t think the addition of “E-TECH” on it’s own provides any benefit at all. FozzieHey (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

It will be a Renault E-Tech engine, the only part of the name left to settle is whether it will be an E-Tech 20 or 21. That we don't know if Renault will use a new engine next year or the 2020 engine isn't detrimental to the reader's understanding that it will be an E-Tech engine.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2020

The final dot point in the "Calendar changes" section is little more than a long list. It reads like this:

"The 70th Anniversary Grand Prix at the Silverstone Circuit, the Eifel Grand Prix at the Nürburgring, the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix at the Imola Circuit, the Portuguese Grand Prix at the Portimão Circuit, the Sakhir Grand Prix at the Bahrain International Circuit 'Outer Circuit' layout, the Styrian Grand Prix at the Red Bull Ring, the Turkish Grand Prix at the Intercity İstanbul Park and the Tuscan Grand Prix at the Mugello Circuit are not included in the list of 2021 planned races. These Grands Prix were specifically introduced into the 2020 calendar in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to ensure as many races as possible to be held."

A lot of this is already in the table of races being run in 2020, but which do not have a contract for 2021. The only thing the list adds is the reason why they were created. I think this dot point can be trimmed a bit. Maybe it should go like this:

"The 70th Anniversary, Eifel, Emilia Romagna, Portuguese, Sakhir, Styrian, Turkish and Tuscan Grands Prix are not included in the list of 2021 planned races. These Grands Prix were specifically introduced into the 2020 calendar in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to ensure that as many races as possible could be held."

I've also adjusted the last bit because the wording was awkward. 1.129.111.172 (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done
SSSB (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2020

The wording on Perez's departure needs to change. It currently reads:

"Sergio Pérez is set to leave Racing Point as they become Aston Martin at the end of 2020, despite the fact that he had a contract to drive for the team until 2022."

However, the second half of this sentence clearly implies that the team did something wrong. Please change it to this:

"Sergio Pérez is set to leave Racing Point as they become Aston Martin at the end of 2020." 1.129.111.172 (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The second half of the sentence does not imply anything, it states that Pérez had a contract until 2022 which was not fulfilled.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I've made a minor copyedit to that sentence as "despite" constitutes WP:EDITORIAL. But I see no reason to ignore the fact he had a contract to.drive until 2022.
SSSB (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

2021 car chassis

Why are the 2020 car chassis listed under the 2021 entries? Sure development is limited but that doesn't mean the teams will use the exact same car, in fact the FIA is mandating a loss in aero so this doesn't even make sense. Only some components are frozen for the 2021 season. FozzieHey (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: I'll ping you here as you added it in this revision FozzieHey (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

FozzieHey Because of COVID and to save money, they're using the 2020 chassis in 2021 as well, see [1]. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Yes I know, but the FIA are still mandating a loss of aero for 2021 and aero parts like wings, bargeboards, the floor and diffusers as well as hydraulics, ECU, gear ratios, drive shaft, outboard suspension, steering columns and air cooling are still available to be developed for the 2021 season. FozzieHey (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@FozzieHey: the article makes no mention of FIA are still mandating a loss of aero for 2021 and my understanding was that:

a) All technical regulation changes (besides DAS) have been postponed to 2022

b) All teams are entering their 2020 cars (they can of course still develop though its limited, sourced in article)
SSSB (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: Here's the source for the reduction in aero through floor changes, sorry I forgot to mention it before 1. FozzieHey (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@FozzieHey: but cars bring upgraded floors for their chassis fairly frequently. This is an enforced floor change but it doesn't require a new chassis, they should just be able to stick the new floor on the 2020 chassis.
SSSB (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

What counts as a chassis change exactly? I don't believe the Mercedes chassis changed much from 2019 to 2020 but it still warranted a new car aticle. FozzieHey (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I dont know but it has been made clear that 2020 cars are to be used in 2021 so every indication is that the names will remain the same.
SSSB (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there anything in the rules preventing a team from changing the name of a chassis after its been homologated? Because you're all right that the teams are required to use the same chassis next year, and the chassis that AlphaTauri - for example - uses in 2021 will be the chassis that we call AT01 today, but as far as I am aware there's nothing preventing them from changing it to AT01B or AT02 or AT01: Electric Boogaloo next season. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any rule preventing this, I think the use of "chassis" in this case refers to the actual car and not specifically the chassis (what is the chassis anyway? the actual chassis hasn't changed much in recent years) as it links to the car article, I feel as if teams will change their car names as per usual based on recent years but that is a bit crystal balling, however so is keeping it in if it links to a car article. I don't see any reason why it should be there so I support just removing it from the table. FozzieHey (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

All the rules (as far as I'm aware) are available as public documents on the FIA website, I might check them tomorrow (I can't be bothered to do it now). As for chassis name changes, the Force India VJM08 comes to mind or the Ferrari F2004 and the Ferrari F2002 (though these are less relevant), but the rules could have changed since then.
SSSB (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I frequently read through the regulations and I'm not aware of a rule like this, I've just quickly skimmed through the Sporting Regulations and can't find anything that prohibits a change of car name. FozzieHey (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

To respond to FozzieHey. We are not currently crystal balling because we know they have to use those cars. If they do change the name we can utilise a redirect from one of the names (either original or new, depending on the names) to the other.
SSSB (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't know they have to use those cars though? As I stated above SOME components are locked, the FIA are mandating a floor change and a lot of components can still be developed. I think it's likely a new car will be presented at the start of the 2021 season as even more components are locked at the first event of the 2021 season. FozzieHey (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Teams have agreed to use their 2020 chassis for the 2021 season. - [2]. They are using the same chassis next year. The fact they develop the car is irrelevant. Teams bring these updates during the season all the time. We dont have a new article every time they bring an update. The same applies here.
SSSB (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Well Mercedes used the 2019 chassis to develop the 2020 car yet that warranted a new article? Unless you can define what a chassis is I don't think it's relevant. FozzieHey (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

chassis
/ˈʃasi/
noun
the base frame of a car, carriage, or other wheeled vehicle. Presumably this means that unless you use a new chassis certain things cant be changed (I dont know, but presumably this includes wheelbase etc.) The inability to upgrade to a new chassis limits what the teams can develop. Take a road car for example, a Subaru WRX. You can lower the suspension, add a spoiler, put in a racing seat but it's still a Subaru WRX, there is only so much you can change without changing the chassis.
SSSB (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Again what parts constitute the chassis directly? I have a feeling RaceFans just looked at the list of frozen parts and said "chassis" for easy reading, which does make sense. I still think the teams will release new cars with new developed parts (just not the ones that are frozen). I think it's crystal balling either way which is why I support just removing it outright instead of putting "AT02" etc. FozzieHey (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what part constitute the chassis directly. But the only one crystal balling right now is you. Multiple sources say that teams will use the same cars next year and yet you still insist that teams will release new cars despite a) having agreed not to and b) without a single source to suggest they will. Developed parts does not automatically mean new car.
SSSB (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree here that the inclusion of these chassis' is a case of crystal balling as well. As pointed out, names can change. I really don't see the problem with removin them and waiting. What's the rush.Tvx1 10:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

No, multiple sources state they will use the same "chassis" not car, and without a definition of what a chassis is I don't think it should be included. We could instead state the listed parts that cannot be changed for the 2021 season (front floor, transmission, axles, rear BBW, etc) and what components can be changed before the 2021 season but are locked into place at the 1st round of the 2021 season (gear ratios, drive shaft, outboard front and rear suspension, power steering, etc.). I don't see any value in having the chassis listed as a column in the table if all it does is link back to the 2020 car article. FozzieHey (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that "chassis" in this context is the homologated monocoque, but I haven't looked through the rules to confirm that. Lazer-kitty (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

That's my interpretation of that, but the actual monocoque hasn't really changed many times between seasons. I don't see much benefit to the reader of having "chassis" instead of a list of components which are frozen at each stage (Early 2020, Mid 2020, R1 2021) etc, it'd give a lot more detail and explanation to what the teams can actually change. The monocoque is certainly frozen since the start of 2020 but why don't we list the other components too? FozzieHey (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Fozzie regarding the names. Appendix 4 (starts on page 120) of the 2021 technical regulations lists all the components and their homologation status for 2021. There are a ton of things that can be changed. Obviously teams are going to be limited on their changes but still, cars could be significantly different. There also appears to be no clear definition on "chassis" in this context; the rules define "Formula One car" but not in any helpful way. I'm beginning to think the statement that "teams will have to use the same cars in 2021" is an oversimplification. I don't think we can justifiably assume that teams will continue to use the same chassis names. That I also don't think we need to go down the rabbit hole of listing every single component of an F1 car and how they are homologated. That's...too much. Lazer-kitty (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

In fact teams can change the survival cell (monocoque) for two tokens if they choose, do we then define that as a new car? The current definition of a "car" being used in this article as being a survival cell feels a bit weird to me. FozzieHey (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

So, do we agree to remove the column then?Tvx1 09:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I suppose consensus is against me here, so yes.
SSSB (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I see they have been removed now. I still have one question though. What should we do with the 2020 season's cars' articles, which tell that these cars are to be used for the 2021 season as well, and with the template for the cars "to be used for the 2021 season.Tvx1 21:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I think we should replace it with something to the effect of "some components are frozen for the 2021 season". What template are you referring to? FozzieHey (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This template.Tvx1 19:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I would say keep the template and text on the pages, because the heading does state "expected to compete", and the cars are expected to compete.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 22:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Although we've just had this discussion. Are they "expected to compete" when every single component hasn't been frozen? There's still a lot of components left open which teams can upgrade to release a new car for 2021, not to mention the mandated FIA floor change. will see their lifespan extended to compete in 2021 seems to suggest that there won't be any upgrades during the offseason to me. FozzieHey (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the teams may decide to do B-spec cars or the like, but at the moment the 2020 cars are expected to be reused and that was the language used when it was announced. So I think it makes sense to leave the car pages as is. On the other hand, chassis do appear on the season entry list so it wouldn't be appropriate to say they have been officially entered yet (which is why they've been removed here).
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Erm, no season entry lists do not tend to include the individual chassis designations. And I thought that we established through the above discussion that the claim that these cars are expected to enter the 2021 season with these exact names was original research, which does render the template's claim unsubtstantiated.Tvx1 12:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Agreed, the individual car pages should be changed as well. The only official communication from the FIA regarding these changes is in the technical regulations linked above, regarding which components are frozen and how many tokens are required to upgrade them. There is no indication anywhere that, for example, McLaren will continue to use the car they call MCL35 in 2021. And if they do choose to do that then we can add that information when it's announced.

In my opinion, if no one had ever announced these restrictions and teams had announced "brand new" 2021 cars like they normally do, I don't think anyone would've noticed. And I think the common phrasing of "teams will be required to use 2020 cars in 2021" is technically accurate, especially given the normal year-to-year changes teams make, but enough of an oversimplification that it can be misleading. Lazer-kitty (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Christian Horner referenced in an interview today that next year's Red Bull will be called the RB16B. What do folks think about adding that chassis name to the table now? Lazer-kitty (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not against including a chassis column, just when we removed it there was no confirmed sources for any of the teams. FozzieHey (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy with it.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 22:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Island92: We just discussed in length the definition of a chassis, the actual article refers to it as a car so I don't see why we'd want to continue describing it as a chassis? FozzieHey (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"Chassis" is commonly used in Formula One, much better than the generic "Car".--Island92 (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Why for this? You have a column called "Chassis" but you're linking to an article about the car, which includes details about the whole car, including the Power unit. FozzieHey (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Likely because the source which will be added, it will report "Chassis" as it for 2020 season for example.--Island92 (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes you're right. The chassis in the source you linked is actually talking about the chassis (excluding the engine). However under the "Chassis" column on this page you are linking to an article that talks about the car (including the engine) and not about the actual chassis (excluding the engine). So we should just rename to column to "Car" as the RB16B is the car. FozzieHey (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Whether you do so, you should rename several Formula One season articles. Do other users agree about this changement?--Island92 (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Historically all of the articles linked in the "Chassis" column have been described as cars in the actual article. I really don't know why it was called chassis to begin with. FozzieHey (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably accorting to the source reported and accorting to the sporting regulation, which has always called it "Chassis" for ages, though what Formula One drivers drive are clearly cars.--Island92 (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

To be honest most of the older articles are not sourced for the car names. I don't know how to access the sporting regulations from years ago but the ones currently describe the engine AND chassis of a constructor, implying that they are different things. They also mention the "car" a lot. FozzieHey (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to change it with Cars, but on the other hand I prefer leaving it as it's been for ages. You are free to change it, but not only for 2021.--Island92 (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I just created a new section on the Project page - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Car_vs_Chassis. FozzieHey (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Island92 (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Leaked or reported?

This section of the article needs to change:

"A proposal for a new race to be held in Saudi Arabia was leaked in October 2020."

When used as a verb, "leaked" implies that confidential information and/or information that was never intended for the public has been published. See news leak:

"A news leak is the unsanctioned release of confidential information to news media."

There is no evidence that the draft WMSC calendar was confidential. These draft calendars are often published like this and the FIA has never complained about it. Furthermore, the draft calendar contained no mention of the Miami or Rio proposals, but they remain in the article as "reported".

Some editors have decided that the source where Amnesty International caution the FIA about a race in Saudi Arabia is irrelevant. This flies in the face of the relationship between sport and politics, especially in the context of the WeRaceAsOne campaign and Mohammed bin Salman's attempts to rehabilitate Saudi Arabia's image. Formula 1 already has a relationship with Aramco, the Saudi national oil supplier which raised some eyebrows when it was announced. A Grand Prix will only bring the sport and the country closer together. Thus the Amnesty International article is relevant.

Finally, we live in an era of misinformation. The word "leaked" implies that the source is not to be completely trusted, which plays into a wider narrative among Formula 1 fans. News of a proposal for a race in Saudi Arabia has had a lukewarm reception at best, and the ethical question of sport and politics has been brough up. However, this is really more a fear that the sport will accept petrodollars for new events that come at the expense of "traditional" races. Presenting the Saudi race as "leaked" rather than "reported" implies that it might not be authentic, raising a neutrality issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.109.160 (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the draft WMSC calendar was confidential. - that would depend on how you define confidential. There are multiple defintions of confidential, intended to be kept secret is the first definition google gives and if the FIA didn't want to keep it secret they would have announced it in some kind of formal capacity (as they normally do with provisial calendars), or another relevant party would have done so. Presumably they want it kept secret until the propsal is more concrete. There is evidence that it is, at this time, not intended for the public. Otherwise there would have been some form of formal announcement from someone. The fact that the WMSC did not publish thier provisial calendar is evidence that it is currently confidential. These draft calendars are often published like this and the FIA has never complained about it. - that's because it is usually the FIA who publish them, and the FIA not complaining doesn't mean anything. There is no point crying over spilt milk.

Furthermore, the draft calendar contained no mention of the Miami or Rio proposals, but they remain in the article as "reported". - that's because at least one person with direct involvement with thier bids announced the bids, hence it wasn't leaked but their bids announced.

Some editors have decided that the source where Amnesty International caution the FIA about a race in Saudi Arabia is irrelevant.... that paragrapgh is all very well and good, but unless you put that (prefable more succinct) arguent into the article, you haven't justified the presence of the source. Additionally the source does nothing to influence the leak vs. reported debate (contratry to what you said in some of your edit summaries).

The word "leaked" implies that the source is not to be completely trusted, Presenting the Saudi race as "leaked" rather than "reported" implies that it might not be authentic, raising a neutrality issue. - strongly disagree. Leaked implies that, at this time, we aren't supposed to know. Nothing more, nothing less.
SSSB (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

"There is evidence that it is, at this time, not intended for the public."

Do you have any of that evidence? Or are you relying on a lack of evidence to be your evidence? The fact that the FIA have not commented is not evidence that they did not want it public. Nor is it evidence that they do not care that it was made public. The fact that the FIA have not commented only proves that they have not commented.

"Leaked implies that, at this time, we aren't supposed to know."

Again, where is your evidence? You're just speculating on something that you cannot possibly know. You are not supposed to interpret sources, just repeat them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.109.131 (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Your own definition of leaked was "that confidential information and/or information that was never intended for the public has been published". Since the calendar was released by a third-party source without authorization (at least public authorization), that would meet your definition for a leak. Until it is published officially, it is not intended for public knowledge. SSSB has provided a perfectly reasonable response to your complaint.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that it was intended for the public? Because from where I'm sitting you are just as guilty of a lack of evidence to be your evidence.
SSSB (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

So your argument is "I don't need to provide evidence because you need to provide evidence"? You're the one making the bold claim that the draft was never intended for the public. You're inferring that from a source which does not describe the calendar as "leaked". Autosport's reporting says it was "seen by Autosport". The only reason you're asking for evidence is because the objectionable claim is already in the article. I'm suggesting the word "reported" because there is a report. It most accurately reflects what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.106.204 (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The fact it says "seen by Autosport" rather than "the published calendar" (or something to a similar effect) is evidence that it was leaked. Someone showed it to Autosport who shouldn't have. "Leak" is accurate.
SSSB (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

You're both inferring, but at least SSSB's inference is logical. There is no official authorization for the calendar to be released, therefore it stands to reason that it isn't authorized. Leak is the correct term to use for all reports up until the official, authorized announcement.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

One of my problems with using reported is that it puts it on a similar level to the "agreement in principle" for a race in Miami, which it isn't. (Miami's "in principle agreement" was formally told to the press, the same is not true of Saudi.

I willing to compromise by changing the Saudi sentence to reported so long as the Miami agreement becomes announced. (i.e. Liberty Media was reported to have signed an agreement to host a second race in the United States. changes to Liberty Media announced an agreement "in principle" to host a second race in the United States. (which is more accurate per the sources anyway).
SSSB (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

SSSB's inference is indeed logical. The problem is that it's an inference; there is nothing in the source that explicitly states the calendar was leaked.

My statement, on the other hand, is factually true: there is a news report that Saudi Arabia will host a race. The statement does not infer anything about it unless you assume SSSB's inference is true—which you should not do because it requires you to speculate on the source.

I find SSSB's compromise acceptable, especially since the draft calendar contains no mention of Miami.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.106.188 (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, your statement is misleading. Use of the term "Reported" implies verifiability. Given the calendar has not been officially released or released in an approved manner, it cannot be verified without relying on the leaked versions. To claim it has been reported is not wrong in the literal sense of the word, but neither is the term leaked. If you would like sources to confirm the use of the word leaked, may I suggest [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

And now, after the race has been officially confirmed, you can start calling it reported rather than leaked.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 22:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

No, now it has been confirmed. You never proved that it was leaked - you just speculated on the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.109.147 (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I beg to differ – I proved it and gave you a fair few sources to back it up, you just refused to accept it.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

A handful of obscure websites that are clearly writing articles based on the original Autosport report rather than seeing the draft themselves is not proof. It's cherry-picking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.109.147 (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Who cares. This discussion is moot. Let it die in peace.
SSSB (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Amnesty International

Amnesty International's criticism of the Saudi race has no place in this article. They have no ability to influence the championship or the running of the race. These details are better-suited to the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix article. To place that criticism places undue weight on Amnesty's role because they are not a regulatory body.

For comparison purposes, the 2014 championship article does not contain criticism of the Russian government for the annexation of Crimea or the their role shooting down of MH17. That criticism is addressed in 2014 Russian Grand Prix, the most-relevant place for that information to be placed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.109.95 (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Since no-one has tried to justify its inclusion, I have removed the content in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.109.88 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It should be in the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix article, but as it doesn't currently relate to the running of the championship, it doesn't need to be in this article. As per the previous examples mentioned by the thread creator. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Lance Stroll

Lance Stroll's Dad owns Force India Racing Point Aston Martin, and is all but confirmed to have that seat. Pity there's no formatting option for "we're pretty sure but it's not official"

byhemechi (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Byhemechi:, we have been pretty sure but it's not official before and ended up being wrong. Which is exactly why official is necesssary
SSSB (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, you never know what may happen between now and then. Stroll Sr could sell the team for example, which means Stroll Jr wouldn't necessarily have the seat anymore. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

While it's not an announcement of Stroll's confirmation, the most recent announcement for Vettel joining writes that Vettel is joining Stroll for 2021. Is this official enough to put Stroll as confirmed for 2021? Dh16dh (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dh16dh: the announcement doesn't mention Lance Stroll (announcement). The "Vettel will patner Stroll" line in non-primary sources is simply speculation.
SSSB (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, sources seem to be assuming that Lance Stroll will be there as it's his father's company. No evidence from the Racing Point/Aston Martin team that Stroll has a contract, which is what we base our information on. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Is it fair to say that there is evidence that he has a contract given all the talk from both Szafnauer and Stroll himself (from most recent press conferences in Mugello)? This article for example states that Stroll's teammate is confirmed, and his comments in the press conference support those claims. Szafnauer has also stated at times that both Perez and Stroll were under contract for 2021 (no longer true for Perez). This article (and the accompanying press conference), also provide evidence that Stroll does indeed have a contract for 2021. I understand that it's not an official announcement, but I'd argue there is evidence to suggest that he is confirmed for 2021. Dh16dh (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Using the final paragrapgh of this source to justify the inclusion of Stroll is WP:SYNTH.
SSSB (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Stroll is confirmed. Whoever claims otherwise must prove that team boss Szafnauer is not a reliable source. --FunkyMartian (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@FunkyMartian: But Szafnauer (in the source cited in the article) doesn't confirm Stroll. He simply says that if he did get the seat he would deserve it.
SSSB (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

"Lance is in the other seat" https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.confirmed-vettel-to-make-sensational-racing-point-switch-in-2021-as-they-re.2fFFG6zJLTZssQg9EBrA5H.html --FunkyMartian (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Could be resonable interpreted as WP:CRYSTAL by formula1.com.
SSSB (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Just because Lance is an unpopular driver, doesn't give anybody the right to declare the official Formula1 website and team boss are both unreliable. You also can't just declare a consensus for your wrong stance when clearly there are people opposing these wrong claims. Lance Stroll is confirmed and that's a fact. --FunkyMartian (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

It may be a fact but that source doesn't confirm it.
SSSB (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

"Lance is in the other seat" https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.confirmed-vettel-to-make-sensational-racing-point-switch-in-2021-as-they-re.2fFFG6zJLTZssQg9EBrA5H.html --FunkyMartian (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Just because formula1.com says it as a throwaway comment, doesn't make it true. It hasn't been officially confirmed by the team yet. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

"Our two pilots get along well. And they are bound by contract for 2020 and 2021" , insists Mr. Szafnauer. 🙄 https://ici.radio-canada.ca/sports/1703059/racing-point-otmar-szafnauer-lance-stroll ---FunkyMartian (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

In the same article Szafnauer claims Pérez is under contract and will stay for 2021. Clearly that didn't happen, so I would take that source as completely unreliable.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 22:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

If nothing that actual team boss Szafnauer says is reliable, Perez's firing also did not occur, by your people's logic. 🤦‍♂️

Perez and Lance Stroll had contracts in May. Then RP/AM changed their minds and Perez's signed contract was terminated. That means Lance Stroll is under contract and Szafnauer reiterated that Lance Stroll drives for Aston Martin in 2021 over and over again.

You people just deny plain and simple facts because you dislike Lance Stroll. The entire world reports that Lance Stroll has a signed contract for 2021. Only a tiny minority of English WP editors are denying that... --FunkyMartian (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

My personal opinion doesn't come into it. I dislike many F1 drivers, and I like many F1 drivers, but that doesn't mean I try to pick and choose what gets put in articles. If Szafnauer says Pérez and Stroll are under contract in the same sentence, and is later wrong about one of them, it stands to reason he could be wrong about both. The only authority on who drives for Aston Martin next year is the team. Until the team confirms their line-up, it is not within Wikipedia's editing policies to assume Stroll will be returning for next year. Will he race for Aston Martin in 2021? 99% likelihood. Can we just assume so without official confirmation from the team? Absolutely not. The same procedure applies to all drivers. Your combative behaviour needs to stop. You have had this process explained to you by what, four editors now, and you still refuse to accept that this is the procedure that Wikipedia follows. The "tiny minority" of editors you're talking about is actually just you.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

"If Szafneur says Pérez and Stroll are under contract in the same sentence, and is later wrong about one of them, it stands to reason he could be wrong about both."

That's faulty logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.109.93 (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks sound to me.
SSSB (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

How?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 22:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

You said it yourself: "it stands to reason he could be wrong about both". That's pure speculation. Szafnauer said Perez and Stroll were under contract. That statement was correct at the time that he said it. Perez was later released from his contract and no mention of Stroll was made. Perez's release and Stroll's contract are two completely independent events, yet because Szafnauer said they were under contract, only for Perez's situation to later change, you are speculating on the possibility that Stroll is not under contract. Furthermore, you have no evidence that Stroll has been released. Based on your logic, every driver in the table should be removed because the person who said "they have a contract" might be wrong about it.

If Szafnauer came out today and said "Our 2021 line-up will be Stroll and Vettel" than that would be reasonably reliable. However, because he said "Our 2021 line-up will be Stroll and Pérez" in the same claim, that claim can no longer be trusted when it is at least partly incorrect. This situation has not occured with any other drivers, in fact, most other drivers (including Vettel) have had their contracts confirmed by their teams, which has not happened to Stroll. There is therefore no official confirmation of Stroll's place next year, aside from a comment from Szafnauer that wasat least 50% wrong.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that WP:EDITCONSENSUS is a thing. Lots of editors keep adding Stroll to the article and have been ever since he was first removed. Based on this, the comments from Szafnauer and the lack of anything directly contradicting them (the best argument is "Szafnauer also said Perez had a contract, be he was later proven wrong"), I think that editors should entertain the inclusion of Stroll. To the layperson (and remember, articles are written for everyone, not just the fans), Stroll is under contract. Because right now it looks like there is a large number of editors putting him in and a small group who are rather aggressively keeping him out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.107.61 (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

To quote from the second sentence of WP:EDITCONSENSUS: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." We have clearly not reached that point.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot of to EDITCONSENSUS than that. There is clearly a vast number of people out there who believe that Stroll is under contract - enough that if there was another discussion here, then the existing consensus would almost certainly change. However, there is a small group of editors tying themselves in knots to justify omitting him. When Szafnauer said Perez was under contract, Perez was under contract. The fact that that later changed does not invalidate his comment about Stroll because he has said nothing about Stroll in the time since. That's a logical fallacy, and what's more every driver should be removed from the table because it would not be hard to demonstrate when and where the person commenting on it has been wrong in the past. What's concerning here is the aggression that a small group of editors are showing in omitting Stroll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.106.226 (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

A lot of people making the same assumption doesn't make it true. That's a logical fallacy. Stroll's contract has not been officially announced by anyone authorised to make that announcement (i.e. the Racing Point/Aston Martin team), and there is really nothing more to it.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at a lot of the sources people attempt to cite with regards to where Stroll will be driving next year it becomes clear that attempting to add Stroll to the entry list constitutes WP:OR. Now, it is kind of absurd that we can't add him to the entry list, but not because of anything to do with Wikipedia. Rather it's kind of absurd that he hasn't been confirmed to be driving for the team yet despite the fact that it seems so likely he will. It's possible the team aren't confirming him until they have every single bit of legal paperwork sorted out with Pérez, but since that may be the case then that just gives even more of a reason to leave him off the list. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and is in the business of providing information which is verifiable, not just information which is heavily rumoured. Once the identity of Vettel's 2021 teammate has been confirmed talking about the history of those rumours will probably be fair game, but right now WP:BLP means we have an obligation to take zero risks about potentially misleading people. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Not that it changes anything, but, I wouldn't be surprised if they never confirmed him at all, given how virtually everyone is tslking about him as though he already is. We may have to wait until the season entry list is published.
SSSB (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Lance Stroll confirmed in an interview in September that he was going to race alongside Vettel in 2021, Otmar Szafnauer confirmed it in an interview, and Formula 1 themselves have listed Lance Stroll as the 2021 Aston Martin driver. It is more than abundantly clear that Stroll has a contract and will be lining up for the team next year, and to not include him on the list is needlessly pedantic and confusing for the common reader.Jtkerrigan (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The only "evidence" that Stroll does not have a seat is Szafnauer's comments about Perez and Stroll being under contract. Those comments were correct at the time he made them, so later events meaning Perez was bought out of his contract don't make them any less correct. All they prove is that a change was made, and that that change affected Perez. Now, if you could prove that Szafnauer was lying when he said that both drivers were under contract, it would be a different story ...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.105.4 (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on those trying to establish something, not disprove it. As it stands, Stroll has not been confirmed by those with the authority to declare it (i.e. Racing Point/Aston Martin, who Stroll would be signing the contract with). As SSSB points out, this official confirmation may not arrive until next year with the publication of the FIA entry list, and as HumanBodyPiloter5 states it is not within Wikipedia policy to make assumptions. No matter how obvious something like this may appear to be, there are still standards which articles must conform to.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Except it's a massive assumption to say that because Szafnauer's original statement - which was true at the time he said it - about one driver was later reversed, then it becomes retroactively untrue for the other driver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.105.78 (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Stroll has not been confirmed by those with the authority to declare it - Doesn't Szafnauer (as the team prinicipal) have the authority to declare it. U-turning on Perez doesn't invalidate the original statement, it just means a clause was excercised that nullified/terminated the his contract. It doesn't mean what he said about Stroll is wrong (I know I am u-turning here). I think it may be worth opening a RfC on this...
SSSB (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Since it's a potential WP:BLP issue an RFC may be necessary. I'm ambivalent as to whether or not Stroll should actually go on the table, but without some broader consensus that including him doesn't violate WP:BLP I think it's best not to. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I have started an RfC below.
  SSSB (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

The following text should be changed:

"Russian Formula 2 driver Nikita Mazepin is due to take one of the seats at the team, while the other will be filled by German Formula 2 driver Mick Schumacher, the son of seven-time World Champion Michael Schumacher."

It should instead read like this:

"Reigning Formula 2 champion Mick Schumacher–the son of seven-time World Champion Michael Schumacher–is due to take one of the seats at the team, while the other will be filled by Russian Formula 2 driver Nikita Mazepin."

Schumacher's status as champion is the most important detail in identifying him in the prose. 1.129.105.75 (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed and  Done.
SSSB (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2020

Please remove the subsection "changes to support series lineup". This has nothing to do with the F1 championship and the support series links at the top of the article are there for navigation, not content. 1.129.110.151 (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Support series are relevant, and I think the level of detail (four sentences) is appropriate. Any more would be undue and should be covered in specific articles, but it is a change to how F1 race weekends are supported, and so seems as important as the F1 media days being moved from Thursday to Friday am. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2020

Please remove Hamilton from the entries table. The article clearly states that the table shows teams and drivers under contract, but Toto Wolff has made it clear that Hamilton does not have a contract yet:

https://www.speedcafe.com/2020/12/13/mercedes-boss-plays-down-hamiltons-name-on-2021-entry-list/

He makes it clear that he had to submit an entry, but that Hamilton still does not have a contract and that the entry list should not be taken as proof that he does. 1.129.109.117 (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done
SSSB (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2020

Okay, this is too vague:

"The 2021 calendar consists of twenty-three events, subject to the naming of an additional event in April and a contract extension for an existing event."

Firstly, are there 23 races or 24? The prose states 23 events and an additional event, which would make for 24. Secondly, "a contract extension for an existing event" is very vague. It feels like this passage is trying to do too much, especially considering that the Vietnam situation is covered in detail below and Spain is addressed in a note.

Simple is better here. The WMSC calendar has 23 events. That is a simple statement of fact. Two of those 23 are subject to caveats, but sections should start with big concepts before moving to small details. 1.129.104.67 (talk) 08:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I have clarified the text.
SSSB (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2020 (2)

This passage needs to be rewritten::

"Sergio Pérez is set to leave Racing Point as they are due to become Aston Martin at the start of 2021. Pérez had previously signed a contract to drive for the team until 2022. Vettel is due to replace Pérez for 2021 onwards. Pérez will replace Alex Albon as a race driver at Red Bull Racing, with Albon becoming the team's reserve and development driver."

It implies that Perez is leaving Racing Point because they are becoming Aston Martin. The passage should start with Vettel joining Aston Martin and replacing Perez, who will move to Red Bull.

There should also be some mention of Perez being the first driver recruited to Red Bull from outside their driver program since 2008-ish. 1.129.104.7 (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, this wording is both dense and obtuse:

"Lewis Hamilton will be the reigning World Driver's Champion, having won the 2020 World Championship title by the end of the 2020 Turkish Grand Prix, and having equalled Michael Schumacher's record of seven."

Something like this would be better:

"Lewis Hamilton will be the reigning World Driver's Champion, having won the 2020 World Championship at the 2020 Turkish Grand Prix. In doing so, he equalled Michael Schumacher's record of seven World Championship titles."

Please fix it. 1.129.104.73 (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done
SSSB (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: - There should also be some mention of Perez being the first driver recruited to Red Bull from outside their driver program since 2008-ish. - this can't be added without a reliable source to back it up.
SSSB (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

This has definitely come up in various articles from reputable outlets, although one would have to go through and dig up the information. The general view seems to be that if Toro Rosso is counted as a part of the Red Bull young driver programme then Pérez is the first driver from outside that programme to be hired by Red Bull Racing since Mark Webber in 2007. On the STR side there's debate over whether Bourdais or Albon was the most recent hire to either team from outside the programme, since Hartley and Albon were both dropped by the programme before being bought back to drive for STR; however since Pérez has been hired by RBR and not STR that's largely tangential. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@User:SSSB, does this source work for you? https://www.speedcafe.com/2020/12/19/perez-replaces-albon-at-red-bull-for-2021-f1-season/

@User:HumanBodyPiloter5, it is definitely worth noting in some form. 2001:8003:2312:E301:84A3:F528:9065:6674 (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done I agree it is worth noting. I see that an editor has inserted it into the text.
SSSB (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Fittipaldi potentially replacing Mazepin

This is all rumor with slight evidence at the moment. Fittipaldi has changed his bios to "Haas F1 driver" or some sort and Mazepin has deleted all Haas-related posts from his accounts. (edit: Haas has also unfollowed Mazepin on their accounts as well and Guenther Steiner did an interview praising Fittipaldi.) Would Mazepin's contract be considered void and thus, we remove him from the table if confirmed? Admanny (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

With the current information available (which amounts to some activity on social media), absolutely not. A similar theory was developed after the Sakhir GP involving Russell and Bottas and did not eventuate. However, if confirmed then yes, we'd have to.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

As always, wait until official confirmation (if there ever is any) before making any changes. It would be unsurprising to hear that Mazepin had been sacked, but we haven't actually heard that. As it's still 2020 it makes total sense for Fittipaldi to call himself a "Haas F1 driver" as he drove for the team this year. Wikipedia is not a place to share rumours; there are many other places on the internet which serve that function. If Mazepin doesn't drive for the team in the end then we should leave a note explaining the circumstances if and when that happens. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I stopped reading after this part: "this is all rumor".

But for what it's worth, Haas' most recent official statement is that if they take disciplinary action against Mazepin, they may keep the nature of that action private. 1.129.106.195 (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment on Lance Stroll's Aston Martin seat

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The provisional 2021 entry list has been published, ending the discussion. No additional comments have been made, so I assume that closing this RfC will be non-contentious.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Is there sufficent evidence for Lance Stroll to be included on the entry table? Several sources say things slong the lines of "Vettel will partner Stroll". However, those opposed argue that, because there has been no official statement/press release confirming this, these sources are speculating.
SSSB (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey

Neutral - See the discussion section. We're currently stuck between a rock and a hard place so far as whether it's correct to include him or not. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose adding Stroll to the table.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Support adding Stroll to the table after the publication of the provisional 2021 entry list.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Admanny (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Changed to Weak support after provisional entry list. Admanny (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Support addition of Stroll. I don't understand why the editors here insist on WP:CHERRY-picking sources in favour of a non-existance press realese from Aston Martin/Racing Point and there is no guarantee that such a press release will ever come. You then have some sources (such as this one: [11]) where Otmar Szafnauer, the team prinicipal, explicitly states that Perez and Stroll are under contract for 2021 and yet these sources are being ignored simply because Perez's contract was nullified/terminated. In above discsussions editors have claimed that this is evidence that Szafnauer was wrong. He wasn't wrong the situation just changed. Arguing that the situation changing for Perez meaning they could change for Stroll (and there is therefore insufficent evidence to include him in the article) is, at best, original research.
SSSB (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, prior to official statement. Idealigic (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Support addition of Stroll. As discussed below, there are valid primary and secondary sources available to justify his inclusion. These sources are being deliberately ignored and there is no policy-based justification for doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.109.139 (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Support Stroll has been confirmed to be driving alongside Vettel by both CEO Otmar Szafnauer here and by his own words here. The statement that Aston Martin's second seat is TBA is really the statement that needs a citation. OZOO (t) (c) 23:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support as he's on the F1 entry list for 2021 [12]. The FIA are an authority on who is and isn't going to be racing, and so this source is way better than news sources speculating/assuming Stroll would be racing. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment - I'm ambivalent on the issue of whether or not we should include Stroll. If it weren't for WP:BLP concerns I would take the side that we should, however as it stands I think we should take the side of caution until either:

• a) Racing Point put out a press release saying who will be driving for them next year.

or

• b) The FIA release an entry list stating who will be driving for the team.

or

• c) Concerns about WP:BLP are in some way adequately addressed.

The question with that last part is whether the high level of evidence that he will almost certainly be driving for the team next year is enough to justify saying that he will be driving for the team next year. However, the closer the start of next season comes without any evidence that any other driver may be driving for the team the more not including Stroll starts to look like WP:CRYSTAL about some potential that another driver might be about to swoop in and snatch the drive from him. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC) HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment it is a difficult choice. Usually we would wait for an official press release from Racing Point/Aston Martin saying they've signed for 2021. But it's been strongly implied in some primary sources (like RP/AM saying that Vettel will partner Stroll), other sources are now saying that Stroll is confirmed for 2021, and the official press release isn't coming anytime soon, as the team obviously assumes everyone knows Stroll is going to stay for 2021, as Stroll Sr owns the team. So either we have to compromise on our usual standards, or compromise by being the only place to not say that Stroll is driving in 2021. Both of which are potential BLP issues. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• • Comment: Otmar Szafnauer is on the record as saying Stroll has a contract. He is recognised as someone with the position to comment on these things, as his statement was used to justify the inclusion of Perez and Stroll in the article at the time. His comments were correct at the time he said them, and while later events saw Perez replaced, those events do not retroactively make Szafnauer's comments incorrect, especially since they only affected Perez. There is no evidence that his comment about Stroll is incorrect aside from the "he said X about Perez and Y happened, so if he said X about Stroll at the same time, Y could also be true" argument, which is speculative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.105.33 (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I am opposed to adding Stroll until the entity with which he would sign a contract – the Racing Point/Aston Martin team – announces it. Szafnaeur has made statements in the past, yes, but the situation has clearly changed since he made those comments and they can not be credibly relied upon now. That Stroll will drive for RP/AM is obvious, yes, but we have standards for the publication of reliable content and he is no exception.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with reasons said; it is likely after Abu Dhabi that RP would mention something about next year and Stroll. Until then, we should wait. Admanny (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Admanny, as Bretonbanquet said below, "Arguing to exclude some reliable sources in anticipation of one which suits certain editors has no foundation in any Wikipedia guideline". There are already valid reliable sources on offer, so there is no cause to ignore those sources because you think a better one might come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.110.104 (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• How can the source be reliable if there has been no public announcement from the team or Stroll/his management? How is that actually possible? Are they psychic, or are they just making assumptions? Either way, it's not verifiable.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment – Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. Arguing to exclude some reliable sources in anticipation of one which suits certain editors has no foundation in any Wikipedia guideline. The team and the FIA are not the only reliable sources in this case: any normally accepted reliable source is enough to add Stroll. The idea that other traditionally acceptable sources might be speculating is completely unfounded. If in the extremely unlikely event that Stroll is replaced, then deal with it then – adding him is not irreversible. Multiple reliable sources like this (particularly redoubtable) one [13] state he is driving for RP next year. If anyone were to add this as a source, no editor should reasonably remove it without being prepared to back up their claim that the source is unreliable, which in my view, they would not be able to do. This project has been overly cautious about this kind of thing for some time, with no good reason. Cherrypicking sources is not supported by any guideline. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Bretonbanquet makes sn excellent point, and in light of that, I think User:Admanny needs to provide further explanation of this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.110.151 (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Admanny is correct, there is an ongoing RfC regarding Stroll's inclusion, so it would be appropriate to wait until the conclusion of the RfC before changing anything related to that.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment in reply to @SSSB: you really get to the crux of the issue in that "He wasn't wrong the situation just changed." The RP/AM contract situation did change, so that interview cannot be credibly relied upon. A press release wouldn't be the only acceptable source, but I would expect an official source to be the one we use – whether that be a new statement from Sazfnauer, Stroll Sr. (in his official capacity), Stroll Jr. or his management, the team, or an FIA entry list. I think that is quite a reasonable range of choices and would not consider it cherry-picking by any useful standard. But anything else is, quite simply, unreliable, because third-party sources are making assumptions.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Your argument is "Perez's contractial situation changed, therefore Stroll's could change too". Yes, Stroll's contract situation could change, but the same could be said about any driver, you could use that arguemnt to exclude Verstappen, Mazepin or Bottas. Stating that Perez's contract changing makes it more likly that Stroll's will change is WP:OR. You have just admitted that Stroll has a contract. That interview is still credible in supporting the addition of Stroll, because there is no evidence the situation around Stroll has changed.
SSSB (talk) 11:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think that's a misinterpretation of my argument. I'm saying the Racing Point contract situation has changed since that interview, so it is clearly outdated. It's all one source created at the same point in time, and unlike those other drivers Stroll has not received official confirmation from the team since, whereas team officials have repeatedly discussed the contracts of those 3 in no uncertain terms.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm saying the Racing Point contract situation has changed since that interview - but only with Pérez. Saying that this means the contract situation has changed with Stroll is original research. The source is only outdated with respect to Pérez, not anything else.
  SSSB (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say in any guideline that secondary sources (or third-party sources, as they have been called here) are not sufficient. They simply are sufficient, per Wikipedia guidelines. If an editor wants to claim that a secondary source is unreliable, then they would have to come up with something better than "they are making assumptions". 5225C is claiming that only a primary source will suffice, and that simply does not stack up by any interpretation of the guidelines. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• I am claiming only a primary source will suffice, because on what else are secondary sources basing their claims on? It logically does not follow. I will remind you that we required a primary source for Carlos Sainz's move to Ferrari despite almost all secondary sources claiming it had occurred.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• The difference here is that we have a perfectly-valid primary source: Szafnauer's comments about Perez and Stroll being under contract.

On the subject of the Sainz articles, they were obvious clickbait - a title that implied the deal had been announced, but the body of the article made it clear this was not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.109.139 (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

5225C, you can claim only a primary source will suffice, but you haven't produced anything in Wikipedia policy to back it up. Serious magazines and websites write stories based on information they have to hand. That information does not have to be published publicly; they are not like Wikipedia. It could be confidential information given to them by team members, bosses, drivers. The best publications do not publish information as fact unless they are 100% sure of its accuracy. That is why they are reliable sources to us. They do not have to reveal their sources like we do. I am not familiar with the Sainz episode, though it does appear those secondary sources were right, and "requiring" a primary source was completely unnecessary, as well as being unsupported by Wikipedia guidelines. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Bretonbanquet, the "Sainz episode" you are referring to is the announcement of Sainz moving to Ferrari. Sources like Autosport reported that the contract had been signed, but no-one from Ferrari or Sainz's side actually confirmed it. It's complicated by a couple of things:

1. The headline on Autosport's front page was (words to the effect of) SAINZ JOINS FERRARI, clearly implying that there was an official announcement, but the body of the article had nothing concrete.
2. Autosport did something similar with Ott Tanak in the WRC last year with very different results: first they claimed he was going to stay with Toyota; then they claimed that he was going to Hyundai; then they claimed that he was going to stay with Toyota; then they claimed that he was going to Hyundai. In each case they claimed an announcement was imminent, but none emerged and they never quoted anyone from the teams or Tanak's side.

None of this addresses the fact that we have a perfectly valid source: Szafnauer's original comments about Perez and Stroll. It satisfies every condition that 5225C wants from a source, but he is refusing to accept it because Perez's circumstances changed so Stroll's might change.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.109.150 (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment: A provisional entry list has been published by the FIA and includes Stroll as racing for Aston Martin. This satisfies my expectations for a reliable source and I have changed my vote accordingly.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: the problem is that your expectations are too high. There has been a valid source available for months which you have refused to accept. And it's not like Toto Wolff refuting the entry list - there was nothing to contradict Szafnauer's comments. 1.129.109.117 (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Drop it.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Why? Because it's inconvenient for you? You ignored a valid source for weeks, if not months. The publication of a new source does not make the issue go away. How can editors be confident that you will not do the same thing in the future? After all, the entry list with Stroll's name on it also contains Hamilton - but Toto Wolff says Hamilton does not have a contract and that the entry list should not be interpreted as meaning that he does. How do we know you won't disregard a source that you find inconvenient? 1.129.109.165 (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Because the discussion has reached a natural conclusion. The table in this article reflects the entry list, the provisional entry list has been published. I did not ignore any source, I rejected a source and I have given you full justification for why I did so. The topic of this RfC was Stroll's inclusion, not my editing philosophy, so if you have any further concerns take them to my talk page.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I am weakly supporting after the entry list. The list still has errors such as Hamilton (w/o contract) so I would not exactly call the list accurate but it is satisfactory for now. Admanny (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Sir Lewis Hamilton

Lewis Hamilton has been changed to Sir Lewis Hamilton by many editors. As per MOS:HONORIFIC, Sir should not be used on articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2021

Could somebody please replace the photo of Mick Schumacher in the article with the photo that appears in the infobox in Schumacher's article. It can be found here. This is a better image because you can see his face more clearly; the hat obscures his face in the image that is currently in use. 2001:8003:2312:E301:19AE:1851:62C2:BDD1 (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done SK2242 (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Aus GP in doubt

Sky Sports, as well as several others, are reporting that the Australian Grand Prix has been postponed as the Australian / Victorian governments will not grant an exception for overseas quarantine for F1. The reports are stated in a way that is beyond speculative reporting, as Sky are talking about it as a statement of fact, that it has been postponed, with an official announcement expected this week. Whilst we may be waiting for an official announcement, to do so is being over-reliant on formula1.com (an issue that has been highlighted before in the project) and it's not as though Sky is an unreliable source. Spa-Franks (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

*Formula 1 2021: Season-opening Australian GP to be postponed

Taking the the title of your article: Season-opening Australian GP set to be postponed - i.e. it hasn't been postponed. Until it is we can't put it in the article.
SSSB (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with SSSB. However I have clarified above the calendar that local governments also must approve the race before it can go ahead. Admanny (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree, right now it's speculation. Wait until it's officially postponed (or not), and then that will be relevant to the article. Just because Sky might be saying it has been postponed, that doesn't make it correct- wait for a proper, official announcement. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

So long as the official calendar says "this race will take place on this date", we should say that that is what the scheduled date of that race is. However we should clarify that the calendar is likely to change, something which there is substantial evidence of. The comment on local government approval is a good way of going about this, although there are probably even better ways of going about it. Just because those officially organising the championship and Grands Prix are under contractual obligations to pretend for as long as they can that everything is going to be normal doesn't mean that we should when there's substantial evidence (reliable sources commenting on the doubts over Melbourne, Jean Todt's recent comments about the season) that things are likely to change. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@HumanBodyPiloter5 and Admanny: they dpn't require (explicit) government approval, but local, or national, restrictions could make the event illegal, or unviable (akin to (implicit) government approval being withdrawn). I have copyedited the statement in question although it could use significant refinement.
SSSB (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@SSSB: I partially disagree with your edit. Last year's Belgium was held under exempt from the Belgian government - had no intervention took place the GP would have not gone ahead. Admanny (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Admanny: Huh, I forgot about that one...

I think the situation is then that they only require government approval if there are restrictions that impact on the event.

I still think my edit is accurate though. Events are still subject to COVID restirctions. If they recieve a waver, then the restrictions, don't apply to them (obviously), this in turn means that the restrictions have been relaxed, if only for F1. Last year's Belgian Grand Prix still only took place becasue COVID restrictions were sufficently slack, even if they were only slackened for F1.
SSSB (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2021 (2)

Please update the lead of the article it currently reads as follows:

"The 2021 FIA Formula One World Championship is a planned motor racing championship for Formula One cars which will be the 72nd running of the Formula One World Championship. It is recognised by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), the governing body of international motorsport, as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. The championship is due to be contested over a series of races, or Grands Prix, held around the world. Drivers and teams are scheduled to compete for the titles of World Drivers' Champion and World Constructors' Champion respectively.

"Lewis Hamilton is the reigning World Drivers' Champion, having won the 2020 World Championship at the 2020 Turkish Grand Prix. Mercedes is due to be the defending World Constructors' Champion, having taken a record seventh consecutive title at the 2020 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix.

It should be rewritten like this:

"The 2021 FIA Formula One World Championship is a motor racing championship for Formula One cars and the 72nd running of the Formula One World Championship.[a] [the Formula One article has a link to this article under "current season"] It is recognised by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), the governing body of international motorsport, as the highest class of competition for open-wheel racing cars. The championship is due to be contested over twenty-three Grands Prix, which will be held around the world. [the number of races has been confirmed, even if the final calendar has not been; this might need a footnote explaining that the pandemic may require changes on short notice - see Jean Todt's comments for a source] Drivers and teams are competing for the titles of World Drivers' Champion and World Constructors' Champion respectively. [again, Formula One already treats the 2021 championship as its current season]

"Lewis Hamilton is the reigning World Drivers' Champion, having won the 2020 World Championship at the 2020 Turkish Grand Prix. Mercedes are the defending World Constructors' Champions, having taken a record seventh consecutive title at the 2020 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix." [because of the Formula One article

Explanations for the changes are in bold, italic font. 1.129.110.191 (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll do the second one, but not the first, third of fourth. Formula One may list is it as the current season, but that doesn't mean the season has started, therefore present tense is unjustified. I also don't think the second sentenceproposed footnote is necessary until COVID does disrupt the calendar.
SSSB (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Editted at 11:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

Please change the opening paragraph in the "calendar" section. It currently reads as:

"The 2021 calendar consists of twenty-three events, subject to the confirmation of the fourth round due to take place in April as a replacement for the Vietnamese Grand Prix. Also subject to confirmation is a contract extension for the Spanish Grand Prix and COVID-19 restrictions."

It should read like this:

"The 2021 calendar consists of twenty-three events, subject to the confirmation of the fourth round due to take place in April. Also subject to confirmation is a contract extension for the Spanish Grand Prix and the status of COVID-19 outbreaks."

I am asking for these changes because:

1. The circumstances of the Vietnamese Grand Prix are detailed below the table.
2. Liberty Media have said that they are in negotiations to keep the race going - to say they are seeking a replacement suggests the race is not an option.
3. I have changed "restrictions" to "the status of COVID-19 outbreaks" because local restrictions are not the only factor - if the organisers think it is too dangerous, they can cancel events regardless of restrictions. 1.129.110.183 (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Restrictions is still the proper word. If the FIA deems it unsafe for themselves to host a race, that's their own restriction. Admanny (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have changed it (with the exception of your third bullet point as I agree with Admanny)
SSSB (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

"Restrictions is still the proper word. If the FIA deems it unsafe for themselves to host a race, that's their own restriction."

I don't think that's immediately clear, though. In the context of the pandemic, restrictions are placed by governments. It's not clear from the wording that the FIA/race organisers have the power to cancel races despite local restrictions or lack thereof. 1.129.110.222 (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that status of COVID-19 outbreaks is the right wording though. What about {{tq|subject to ... COVID-19 restrictions, set by local government and Formula One management (bolding to highlight proposed additions)
SSSB (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

User:SSSB, maybe "regulations" rather than "restrictions". Possibly with some kind of footnote to elaborate without shifting the focus of the section. 1.129.106.154 (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Aston Martin / Alpine flags

Is there any reason to think Aston Martin & Alpine will be changing from their current flags? Given that ownership is not changing, just branding, is there a source that suggests they will not be British or French respectively in 2021? OZOO (t) (c) 23:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, neither have a current flag. The team could be registered anywhere, so until the team is entered or another reliable source is found for their nationality, we actually don't know what it will be.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree, they are new constructors so don't have a "current flag". We should not just assume it'll be the same as Renault and Racing Point. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, they are not new constructors. They are rebranding both teams. There is no indication of a change of ownership. This seem clear from the referenced articles from formula1.com for each team. If anyone suggests that they have to wait to see registration paperwork for these two teams, then that same requirement would apply to all teams and we should remove their flags too. Why not use the flags that were used by these two same teams, using their 2020 branded names, until we have data to prove otherwise.
observer_144 (talk • contributions) 19:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there a source that suggests they will be British and French respectively in 2021?
SSSB (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that it's backwards to remove the flag until evidence is provided they have not changed the location of the main team ownership. Instead, I would suggest that the flag remains the same as previous years until a source can indicate that there was a change. I.e. status quo from previous year until evidence is provided to counter-indicate. The flag can be changed at that point. Renault is the owner of the Alpine team, as indicated by the Alpine F1 Team page, and is therefore a French company and French ownership. The Aston Martin in Formula One team is owned by Racing Point UK, a company based in GBR. The changes from 2020 season are for rebranding only, not changes of ownership.
observer_144 (talk • contributions) 19:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I respect that everyone feels a need to be certain about the flags. That's what is good about wikipedia editors - passion for accuracy. However, FIA has published the 2020 and 2021 Formula One Entry Lists ([14]), and there is no change in ownership for either team. They remain under Renault Sport Racing Limited and Racing Point UK limited. Would this not indicate that we can use the flags for both teams for the 2021 season?
observer_144 (talk • contributions) 19:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

After seeing the provisional entry list I have to agree with Observer 144, the RP and Renault are the same companies just entering under a different name.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Ownership does not equal nationality. Mumtakalat is a Bahraini investor who own a stake in McLaren, but McLaren compete under a British flag. American investors from Dorilton Capital bought a stake in Williams, but Williams competes under a British flag, not an American one. Midland was owned by a Canadian, but competed under a Russian flag because of the owner's ethnic background and business in Russia. So while it is most likely that Alpine will be French and Aston Martin will be British, that is by no means guaranteed. 1.129.111.93 (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I think OZOO was referring to a change in ownership because that could mean a change in where the corporate entrant is based, which could change the nationality.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The companies who own the team, or where the team/company are based are all irrelevant. Consider Force India or Benetton who changed nationalities half way through their time in F1. The only evidence I have seen that they will use the English and French flags is based on WP:OR.
SSSB (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

But Force India became a different legal entity, which is not occuring in this case. On what is the nationality based if not the company that enters the team? Is this specified in the regulations?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

But Benetton didn't become a different legal entity. Nationalities are based on where the team is registered. The only evidence you have that Aston Martin will be registered in the same place as Racing Point, or the Aston Martin company is based on WP:OR, likewise with Alpine.

Red Bull also changed thier natioality half-way through.

In fact there is nothing stopping Ferrari from becoming Croatian next year, apart from a bit of paperwork.
SSSB (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that, I'm asking for clarification on how team nationality is determined. Does the team simply declare it to the FIA?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know.
SSSB (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I still don't understand the purpose of the flags. Teams can be headquartered anywhere; for sporting reasons, for tax reasons, and for reasons of national pride. Who knows? Having the flags adds no useful value, and never has. Per MOS:ICON: "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags..." In this case, teams may be BASED in one country, REGISTERED in another, and OWNED in still a third, PRIMARILY SPONSORED in a fourth, and so on. Associating a flag with a team can lead to the kind of confusion MOS:ICON specifically refers to. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

But the FIA entry list, when it is eventually published, includes the team's nationality, definitively settling this discussion. Like any sport, the teams and drivers do act as national representatives, so to me having flags here is just as useful as having them in results pages from the Olympics.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The flags make sense for the drivers, but not for the multinational teams in the paddock. You don't (usually) have multinational teams in the Olympics, because unlike in F1 the Olympic teams are representing their country. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Constructors are officially considered to be representatives of the country of the national sporting body which issues their competition licence, hence why the anthem of the winning constructor is played on the podium etc. One can debate whether or not the sport should operate in this manner all day long; but we can't change what the facts are, only report them. I may dislike the nationalistic jingoism which exists in almost all sports regarding competitors, but I don't pretend that it's not a part of the sport. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey, the constructor flags aren't based on the nationality of the team - if they were most of them, including Mercedes, Renault/Alpine and Red Bull, would use the British flag. No, the constructor flags are based on the nationality of the national body that the team owners choose to get their team licence from. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

None of that has anything to do with the flags are unnecessary in my opinion, and would seem to not fall within the spirit of the Manual of Style. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I think there comes a point where WP:COMMONSENSE applies. The flags are currently blank because the teams might register under a different nationality, but is there any reason to believe that they will? Outside a branding change and maybe a new livery, everything else stays the same. Is there any evidence that Alpine will not be French or that Aston Martin will not be British? Dozens of editors seem to think they will, given how frequently they have added the flags in. 1.129.106.143 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, especially considering the entry list has the same company entered, which I would take to mean the same license will be used as before the rebrand.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, at this point in time claiming that there is a possibility that they might change their registered nationalities honestly constitutes original research. There is nothing to suggest that the status quo will change for these teams any more than there is to suggest it will for any other team. All that has changed is that they've written a different name down on the entry list. A few months ago there was more justification, but at this point it's starting to look silly. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the entry list says they're the same companies, so makes sense to use the same flags. If they do decide to change flags, we can always change it if/when they announce a change of flag. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree to follow common sense and assume that they aren't changing flags. But,@HumanBodyPiloter5: saying they are staying the same is orignal research, not the other way around. And the justification hasn't changed. You seem to be getting confused, WP:COMMONSENSE says that we should insert the British/Frnech flags despite it constiting orignal research.
SSSB (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@SSSB:, both are original research to some degree. Including the question marks implies that there is evidence that the nationality they race under may change, but there isn't any evidence of that. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. To me, the question mark only implies that we don't know, nothing more, nothing less, it just means there is no (solid) evidence of what flag they will use.
SSSB (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Except the reality is that due to a combination of circumstantial evidence and the resultant WP:COMMONSENSE, we do know what flags they will almost certainly be racing under. If they do decide to make a highly unexpected change then we can address that when it happens. The closer we get to the scheduled start of the season the more it looks like we're implying that there is evidence that they will make a highly unexpected last minute change. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head. Following circumstantional evidence is original research. More, importantly, why are we still discussing this if we agree to ignore the original research policy in this case?
SSSB (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Given the uptick in flagicon edits recently I think it would be appropriate to start an RfC for two weeks to gain proper input. Admanny (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:RfC is if we can't come to an agreement. I see agreement here. As far as I can tell, nobody is opposed to using common sense and adding the British and French flags to Aston and Alpine respectivly (apart from Sjessey who wants flags removed completely, but that doesn't effect if we should use WP:COMMONSENSE.)
SSSB (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Cancelled races table

Is a whole table really needed for one cancelled race? Sure, it was done in the 2020 article, but there were multiple cancellations. Here it's just one race. I don't really see the need for it - explaining it in prose would be much more succinct and much more effective.

Also, could somebody please add nowrapa for Imola/Emilia Romagna to make the article more accessible to mobile readers? 1.144.108.135 (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed.
SSSB (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:SSSB - in that case, the table should be removed from the article and the issue addressed in prose. Something like this:

"The Chinese Grand Prix was included on the original calendar that was approved by the World Motorsport Calendar. However, the event was postponed at the request of event organisers, who cited the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Emilia Romagna Grand Prix at the Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari, which was originally intended to be a one-off Grand Prix in 2020, was retained in its place."

There should also be some mention of the Australian Grand Prix being moved to the end of the year. 1.129.106.144 (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done
SSSB (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Abiteboul leaves Renault

How do people feel about including Cyril Abiteboul's departure from Renault under the "team changes" section? I would argue that any senior personnel leaving a team is pretty significant because they influence the culture and direction of the team - look at McLaren's turn-around from Eric Boullier to Andreas Seidl. 1.144.108.105 (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Problem is where do you draw the line? There are probably dozens of changes in personnel every year, all made with the aim of improving a team's fortunes, but very hard to quantify a performance uplift being down to any single person. Think it best to contain personnel movements to the person and team articles. Pholnphilit (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

"Problem is where do you draw the line?"

Simple. This is what I said:

"any senior personnel leaving a team is pretty significant"

Senior personnel. So, team principals and car designers, for one. 1.144.108.165 (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The section on team changes forms part of larger section on what is basically the entry list. Team members don't appear on the entry list and can even change race to race. It isn't important to mention, for example, that Binotto was absent from a couple of races or that Williams had Roberts or whoever it was as acting team principal. Ultimately, team members aren't relevant to the season entry list and their involvement with the team can be covered on their personal and the team's articles.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

A change in team principal is pretty significant overall though. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It's significant, but not relevant to a section titled "entries".
SSSB (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If we learned nothing else from the Netflix series (and yes, I know they take some creative licence), it's that team principals play a huge role in managing the fortunes of a team. 1.129.106.144 (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Their importance to the team's operations doesn't make them relevant to the entry list.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You do know that it's about more than the entry list, right? You shouldn't treat it as gospel. 1.129.106.156 (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The section is quite literally called "Entries". Team personnel are not entered.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

If that is your only objection to including the information then the solution is obvious. Change the heading. I believe some of the articles on older seasons use "Teams and drivers", though I would prefer something more ... streamlined.
SSSB (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"Team personnel are not entered."

No, but team personnel run the teams, and the teams are the ones that are entered. Without the team personnel, the entry is meaningless. It's a piece of paper that says you are entered. 1.129.106.136 (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@SSSB: Aside from personnel not being an official entry, they are frankly not significant enough to justify discussion on the season's article. By the same logic 1.129.106.136, we could also include, for example, a list of the organisers of the races and a table of the FIA officials who run the GPs. They are all essential to the running of the season, but we don't include them because they do not have any particular notability outside of their specific role. Team personnel are team personnel and they can be discussed on the team's article and their own article if applicable.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

While the appointment of a new CEO, designer, engineer etc is of significance to a team, they are less so to a championship season and thus should be kept to the team articles. By way of a similar example, in 2020 it was discussed and agreed that while the change of ownership of Williams was a significant event for the team, it was agreed that it had little bearing on the season. Fecotank (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Brazilian GP

A Brazilian judge has suspended the contract to run the Brazilian GP. Presumably this means that, at this point in time, the GP is cancelled. Should become clear within a week as the São Paolo authorities have five days to submit relevant documents. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't mean it's cancelled (at time of writing) it just means the formal agreement is void. A couple of weeks ago we had a situation where there was no formal agreement for the Spanish Grand Prix.
SSSB (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought that the Brazilian GP wasn't being held anyway? Weren't they going to hold the São Paulo GP instead? With regards to the contract, a temporary suspension is no the same as cancellation.Tvx1 16:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021

Mercedes' chassis name has been confirmed to be the W12 as per their twitter [15]

Lewis Hamilton is listed on the F1 website drivers page, which was updated today [16] Norgz7775 (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The F1 drivers link clearly says "F1 Drivers 2020". Mercedes haven't announced he's signed a contract yet. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Chassis name added.
SSSB (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI, the F1 site does say "F1 Drivers 2021" and has Hamilton listed (this may have changed since you last looked; or we may be looking at something different!). Personally think he should be in the table now (but definitely retain the note). Not worried either way though. Bs1jac (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Only put him in the table when official entry list releases if he still doesn't have a contract. Similar scenario to Senna in early 90's with McLaren iirc. Admanny (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The official entry list has been released a while ago and is actually used as source for the table. That entry list actually does include him. Also the Senna situation isn't really comparable since Wikipedia didn't exist back then. We don't really have a precedent of us dealing with something similar in the past.Tvx1 23:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2021

Good Evening,

With respect I feel that the 'Technical Regulations' section is lacking significant detail. I'd like to propose that something like this is added.

"On 27th of May 2020 it was announced that rule makers had opted to 'clip' the floor of the cars in order to reduce downforce for 2021. In 2020 the floor is permitted to run in a straight line from an area adjacent to the cockpit back to a point ahead of the rear tyre, however from 2021 that point ahead of the tyre must be 10cm further inboard, so making the floor edge a diagonal line when viewed from above. It's expected that this change will reduce downforce levels by 5%.

In August 2020 three further changes were announced for 2021, these are expected to remove a further 5% of downforce giving a 10% decrease in total when added to the aforementioned 'floor clip'. Specifically these three changes are the removal of some slots on the edge of the floor, narrowing of brake duct winglets by 40mm and chopping of diffuser fences by 50mm. It is expected that teams will find downforce improvements of roughly 5% over the winter so the anticpated overall downforce reduction is 5%. TuscanSteve (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done, with some additional editing.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Glad to be of service this time. You may remember that my previous contribution regarding Roscoe the dog on the 2020 Sakhir Grand Prix page wasn’t so helpful. TuscanSteve (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I do, but I'm glad to see you moved on from that.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

References