Talk:2021 Formula One World Championship/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Splitting British GP Column on Race results for SR

Left hand would have the Sprint Race results then the Right hand side have the actual Grand Prix Results and split it similar to Formula E's double headered races? Norgz7775 (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not a fan of this method for this situation since unlike a multi-race round, the points value of the sprint race is significantly less than the actual race (and this is a championship summary table, so relevance to the championship is essential for something to be included). I would prefer a superscript or subscript system, though I'm not sure how subscript would go with accessibility. Some people have complained superscript makes the cell to wide, I don't see how this matters or is a problem since an extra column will ultimately add a lot more to the table width.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I second what 5225C says. This is not a double header. The sprint race takes the place of qualifying, so we treat it the same way we treat quali results, with a superscript. It also won't make the table wider, sprint race winner is synonomous with race winner. If you win the sprint race, wouldn't the supercript just be 1^P, since it is that which gives you pole. 1^{1 P} would be redundent, wouldn't it?
SSSB (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with dropping qualifying results from the table when there's a sprint race, but how would you show points for the second- and third-placed drivers? I think there'll have to be points superscript or a "1^P
₃" situation.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Points for second and third drivers? I think you misunderstand my previous point, although I also included a point of confusion. Let's say the result of the sprint and main race were identical. Then we would have 1¹ (as winning the sprint race puts you on pole, we don't need to include the p here), 2² and 3³, for first, second and third respectively.
SSSB (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I confused myself there, I see no issues with your method.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree, we don’t need a P for sprint qualifying.Tvx1 00:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I strongly diasgree on not neeing a P or bold for the Sprint Qualifying winner as that is how offcial pole position for the Grand Prix will be achieved. These should be included in my opinion. FOM has confirmed that the winning driver will also receive a trophy for winning Sprint Qualifying like drivers do do for normally setting pole time in qualifying . The win in sprint qualifying is being treated by FOM as any normal position and I don't think we should treat it any differently either.Engine V10R (talk)— Preceding undated comment added 12:19, 28 May 2021

But F1 are treating it differently because they are awarding points, which is why we are having a superscript 1, 2 and 3 for the sprint race results. But I don't understand why we need a P. Because the superscript 1 means that you have won the sprint race, which, by definition means you are on pole. So I don't really follow your argument.
SSSB (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit request regarding W series information on 18 May 2021

The information regarding the W series needs alteration . The series will now start at the Styrian Grand Prix rather than the French Grand Prix.. Please update this information Engine V10R (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done
SSSB (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Draft:2021 British Grand Prix article now avaliable for for review I have created an Draft:2021 British Grand Prix which is ready for review and approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engine V10R (talk • contribs) 15:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Singapore GP

to all of you. https://twitter.com/f1/status/1400856436972961796?s=21 https://twitter.com/f1nightrace/status/1400842930982510595?s=21 it’s already official. thank you for understanding. Jacxgarrett (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it's also in Autosport with an official announcement from "Colin Syn, deputy chairman of the Singapore GP". Seems perfectly reasonable to put it as cancelled, much more so than saying "the BBC announced it's been cancelled".... Joseph2302 (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I added the official F1.com source in my edit at 17:11. People seriously need to check what they're removing before they get trigger happy. Besides, F1's official twitter account is absolutely a reliable source. Ved havet (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

F1 twitter isn’t reliable sources they said. heck it’s F1 Official twitter. idk what they’re thinking Jacxgarrett (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo constructors points

Alfa Romeo Racing have now scored two constructors points not just one.--Engine V10R (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I pointed out the error earlier, further up this page. SSSB is working on it. --Marbe166 (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done (but please double check for mistakes.
SSSB (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Error

In the Constructor standings, Gasly is listed as being classified 19th. He was classified 17th. It's been wrong for a good while. I'd edit it myself but it's so unfathomably hard now to make changes like this, that isn't worth the effort. God knows why you people thought it was smart to make it so complicated. You'd think that, having decided to make it so complicated, you would manage to avoid making basic errors like this, but apparently not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I've done it myself now, jumping through all the hoops. Well done, everyone. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Error again

The constructor's standings are at error again! How/where can i correct them??? Kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

{{F1R2021}}
SSSB (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Still not correct on May 4th— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefangabos (talk • contribs) 10:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Stefangabos: I just checked and it looks correct to me (although I might have missed one). Can you be more specific?
SSSB (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@SSSB: the alphatauri mentions all the points for gasly whereas 9th place in bahrain was tsunoda's— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefangabos (talk • contribs) 17:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Stefangabos: the constructors table lists the best result for the constructor above the worse result, not row one per driver. Look at the other constructors, or last years table and you will see it is the same.
SSSB (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

New error

This is really confusing me at the moment. The points tally in the Constructor's championship table have been updated (after Baku) for Red Bull and Mercedes, but not for Ferrari, McLaren, AlphaTauri, Aston Martin, Alpine and Alfa Romeo. However, the race results are updated, and the teams are in the correct order... --Marbe166 (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

So whoever updated the templates only did a partial update. I'll need to take a look.
SSSB (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done (but please check for errors.)
SSSB (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Request For Help. Node Limit Reached

I hid the constructors standings from displaying due to a node limit error. It seems to have been caused when someone was adding the results from France to the constructors standings. Can someone who understands this better than I do take a look, correct the issue, and un-hide the results? JohnMcButts (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Approach to infoboxes for events with Sprint Qualifying update

Hi there can anyone tell me how Wikipedia will be approaching infoboxes for the British Grand Prix given that event will involve new aspects such as Sprint Qualifying which has never been used use . Will references to Sprint Qualifying be included in the infobox or not . Also where it usually says a drivers positon time underneath their name and time will the infobox simply say Sprint Qualifying winner underneath a drivers name and team rather than show a pole time. Will the infoboxes for events with Sprint Qualifyig be expanded in these cases to inclue both qualifying and Sprint Qualifying information Engine V10REngine V10R (talk • contribs) 10:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I image that the pole parameters will show the sprint race winner, to match the broad consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Sprint races and #Splitting British GP Column on Race results for SR. I also assume, by the same reasoning, that the polesitter of the sprint race, won't feature in the infobox at all.
SSSB (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

In these case we will treat sprint qualifying as if it were regular qualifying for the race and friday qualifying as we did with pre-qualifying in the nineties.Tvx1 21:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

This stance has been confirmed,
SSSB (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Monaco Leclerc - Follow-up

Further to the consensus established at Talk:2021 Formula One World Championship/Archive 2#Leclerc Footnote, and firmly in keeping with my belief that consistency is important across a project's articles, I have added similar footnotes at 2001 Formula One World Championship. Spa-Franks (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Sprint and results

Has it been considered if and how we should document the results from sprint races? My immediate thought was a table similar to that of the Grand Prix pole setters and winners, above the Grand Prix table and header, below a new "Sprint" header. To me that makes sense considering the flow of the page compared to the flow of the weekend. But more importantly, there should probably be some way to mark the 1st, 2nd and 3rd results (or that of the entire grid) for the drivers' and manufacturers championship, because at the moment drivers and teams will have more points than the tables alone tells readers they should have based on position and fastest lap results. Maybe new "1", "2" and "3" annotations similar to that for Pole and Fastest lap, perhaps placed before the Grand Prix result instead of behind it? Any thoughts? Ved havet (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It has been considered, discussed and agreed upon. The winner of the sprint race takes goes in the pole column of the results table. There won't be a special table for the sprint results. Sprint results will be marked with a superscript "1", "2" or "3" after the main result (like the "p" and "f" currently used). Events with sprint races won't have the "P", but the "1" instead. This was agreed upon months ago.
SSSB (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha, didn't spot the discussion. Ved havet (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency re "sprint" terminology

Having rewritten the British GP section to use more encyclopaedic language, I notice there is a glaring inconsistency in the article as to what the Sprint is called. "Sprint qualifying" and "sprint race" (with or without capitals) are used interchangeably throughout the article: it's about 60:40 for "sprint qualifying", excluding the paragraph I've just written. Seeing as the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is that F1's primary sourcing is acceptable, I believe these should all be changed to "(the) sprint" without "qualifying" or "race" as a suffix - Martin Brundle was even complaining about the fact that they had been told they weren't allowed to call it a race. As far as I can work out, I can't see any discussion on this specific issue within the archives at WT:F1 regarding what it should actually be called. Spa-Franks (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with the above, I don't see any other way to settle it.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• As long as we don’t use any term with the word race in it, it’s fine. This is not a sprint race like the ones in F2 and F3.Tvx1 06:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

HUN results and championship standings wrong

Vettel disqualified: https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.breaking-vettel-loses-second-place-finish-in-hungary-after-disqualification.1hHxDLG0ARyAw6q2TCDkiS.html

Vettel’s P2 has been reinstated pending appeal from Aston Martin.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/sebastian-vettel-disqualified-hungary/

The standings have reverted to reflect this:

https://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/2021/drivers.html AdamComer (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Aaaaaand forget i said any of that because he’s been disqualified again hahaha AdamComer (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

World Constructors' Championship standings

The World Constructors' Championship standings after Belgian Grand Prix are incorrect. - 118.136.48.190 (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, finally understand how the templates works. - 118.136.48.190 (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2021

At the 2021 Belgian Grand Prix Nikita Mazepin a Haas F1 Team driver set the fastest lap of the race, but it's not mentioned in this article. Please add this information.

Source: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/belgian-gp-race-report-verstappen-6656806/6656806/ - "Despite the two laps being completed behind the safety car, Nikita Mazepin is officially awarded the fastest lap of the race - 3m18.016s - but does not receive any bonus point as he finished outside of the top 10." 91.150.157.86 (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read the discussion above. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Belgium fastest lap

As much as it galls me, we must list Mazepin as having the "fastest lap" in the Belgian Grand Prix. The table of results lists the driver with the fastest lap of the race, irrespective of whether or not they finished in the top 10. This was so for the British Grand Prix, where Sergio Perez was credited with the fastest lap despite finishing outside the top 10. Furthermore, this has been the standard practice for many, many years. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Show the result that lists a fastest lap of the race. Note, this is different than a simple listing of every driver's fastest lap time. You're failing to grasp that a race under full course yellow cannot have a fastest lap, for anyone. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not "failing to grasp" anything and I'll thank you not to cast such aspersions. The fastest lap WAS achieved by Mazepin, and per convention we should list it here, as we have always done. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I should further add that another convention is to NOT revert a BRD reversion until a discussion has reached consensus. A heavy-handed revert war is not good for the stability of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The FIA did not award a fastest lap (see race classification). The359 is correct.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Show the fastest lap of the race in an official result. We do still go off of sources, don't we?

How can a single lap held under caution be eligible for fastest lap of the race when the caution rules are specific on pacing?

Edit was made before a discussion was posted, so I'll thank you to worry more about sourcing and less about reversion. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, you must find sourcing for making a change to a longstanding convention. We have always listed the fasted lap, going back decades. The provided source only mentions that no POINT was awarded. Looking back in the editing history, it is clear several editors share this point of view. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Per the race classification, the fastest lap column is empty. No fastest laps were recorded. How do you expect to list a fastest lap if none are officially recognised?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I have absolutely no obligation to need a source stating that something didn't happen. You claim Mazepin had fastest lap, show it. It's as simple as can be. I'd further point put that the lap you claim Mazepin was fastest on was nullified as the results were rolled back to the end of Lap 1.

Convention #1 is sourcing. If you have none, then the rest of your conventions are moot. There is absolutely nothing in the source provided by 5225C, the only official source, that says that "mentions" no point being awarded, there simply is none listed. We have always' had a race proceed with green flag racing, hence why we had fastest laps in every instance. This race was not the normal race. Adapt. The³5₉ (Talk) 02:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." The FIA PDF given above is a primary source; however, this article in Motorsport is a secondary source (and thus more desirable) that definitively gives Mazepin the fastest lap that we can use in our table. A table, I might add, that has remain unchanged for decades until now. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what has been quoted. Primary sources are valid on Wikipedia. Lesser extent does not mean it is excluded.

Motorsport.com lists the race as 3 laps. The race officially ended after Lap 1. Therefore, Motorsport.com is wrong. Reliable is part of the equation. Sorry, try again.The³5₉ (Talk) 02:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

In addition, your Motorsport.com article, if you click full results, goes to here which has the correct results and no fastest lap, since the race reverted back to the end of Lap 1. The³5₉ (Talk) 02:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

With respect Scjessey, your argument is nonsensical. The FIA results are the official race results, they can't be overridden by a secondary source. Even if Wikipedia policy prioritised secondary sources in this case (which it does not), this would be a WP:COMMONSENSE situation. If it's not in the race classification, and it's not, then it isn't recognised as a legitimate result. That is all there is to it.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that since the only lap that counted for any of the drivers started from the pit-lane exit and not from the control line, nobody is counted as having set a flying lap that would count towards being considered the fastest lap. Is this correct? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe so, hence why the column is blank.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I would equally suggest that a lap under FCY cannot be counted as a fast lap since there are limitations on the pace of the cars, although I'm sure this is something that has never been truly defined. Can a lap under caution count as a fastest lap? The³5₉ (Talk) 12:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I am persuaded by the arguments above and I will not contest this any further; however, I continue to believe the "fastest lap" column should be filled in for Belgium if it can be ascertained which driver had it. If we have the live timing and scoring AND we know which lap the results were based on, it would be easy to work it out. With that said, I wouldn't countenance someone inserting any original research on the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Either I'm being completely thick here, or as the results were taken after one lap, Verstappen surely has the fastest lap? A similar situation arose at the 2018 Canadian Grand Prix, where one of the Red Bull drivers set the fastest lap, but it didn't count owing to the countback rule, so it cannot possibly be Mazepin. WP:COMMONSENSE would simply have:

Fastest lap: Max Verstappen (Red Bull Racing-Honda) – 3:27.071 (lap 71)

-- Spa-Franks (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit - annoyingly, I can't find anything in the 2021 Sporting Regulations pertaining to the non-awarding of the FL point. Spa-Franks (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

That timing doesn't really reflect the actual lap time, I don't think. It was more a question of how far everyone was behind Max when he finished his lap. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Without any reference for where the "lap" started (where the cars were when the green light came on, when they crossed the pit exit?) there is no way to determine fastest lap, least of all without violating WP:SYNTH. The time listed in the official results is their race time, we can't warp that into being a lap time simply for the sake of filling a cell onna table. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Here you have a lap analysis from the FIA showing that there are also lap times for the sole classified lap. However, since the FIA does not recognize Max’ lap time as the fastest lap, neither should we as it would be original research to do so. I will also point that any FIA document pertaining to this race is NOT a primary source. The primary source are the race events themselves. The official result is already a secondary source because the stewards already synthesised the events, even applying a count-back, to declare an official result. A secondary source is NOT the same thing as a third-party published one.Tvx1 09:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Spa-Franks:, the information you’re looking for is on page 4 of that document.Tvx1 09:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This source says Mazepin actually set what would have been the fastest lap of the race behind the Safety Car on the second lap out of the pits to check conditions, but as the race classification was taken from the end of Lap 1 it doesn’t register in the final results.--Island92 (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It means Mazepin's fastest lap doesn't count because it was on lap 2, and the results were taken after lap 1. It still doesn't explain why there was no fastest lap awarded to someone else. There is some speculation for this at Talk:2021 Belgian Grand Prix#Hold up......
SSSB (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"Sprint qualifying position is only included for points scoring positions"

Sorry, I am new but curious and would like to know! Thank you.

Means on the table, only on British GP so far, numbered superscripts denote the position finished in sprint qualifying. However, because only the top three positions score points, the rest are simply not shown. Admanny (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2021

Hi not sure how to edit myself In the current points table for the constructors championship. Max Verstappen and Sergio Perez are the wrong way round for the Azerbaijan GP. You can see the results are correct in the drivers point table. http://prntscr.com/1ryc8uq. Jonnie Black (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please read the note below the table.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2021

Latifi's points total should be 6+2=8 whereas it is 7 in the individual driver standings and also results in Williams being given 22 points in the constructors standings when they should be on 23. Thanks. 2A0A:E780:F4E:1D0:4DDF:7468:E1E2:5F2A (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - Half points were awarded at the Belgian Grand Prix, meaning Latifi scored one point at that race, as half of two is one. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Kubica

Shouldn't Kubica be ahead of Mazepin in the table? Both have a best finish of 14th, but Kubica's second best is 15th against Mazepin's 17th. Mjroots (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

He is, at least now. --Marbe166 (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done I was the one who fixed this. Admanny (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Error

Constructors championship standings, both Alfa Romeo drivers scored one point, Antonio in Monaco and Kimi in Baku, table states that one of drivers finished P10 in both races Sukhanov.alexander (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sukhanov.alexander: For each race, the better result for the team is listed first, then the worse result - it's not "one row per driver". DH85868993 (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

yeah it's a poor layout - as demonstrated by it having to be explained under the table. The pre-2014 F1 season wiki pages are much better. 2A00:23C8:8988:4601:4590:8134:EA4:6AD4 (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not a poor layout. A small number of readers are smply making unjustified assumptions about the table.
SSSB (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

If users repeatedly make the same assumption the table is wrong, not the users as that is evidence of a poor user experience. Further the "assumption" is a logical progression from reading the more informative layout adopted in previous years. It's bad to have a row layout whose contents are not internally consistent - you have to know the answer to read the table - that they are sorted by place order as there is no indication or sort facility to tell you this. It's so poor that it's been criticised on pretty much every season's talk page and the excuse given (rather than an explanation) is that basically the table is not intended to be informative, if you want information on the relative performance of a team's drivers go and find it elsewhere. It's uselessness is confirmed by an explanatory note that says "look we know the table doesn't work but we can't face admitting as much so we've covered ourselves with a ridiculous explanatory note indicating the contra-informative nature of the table. We doubt you'll read this note, less even expect it to be here to go looking for it".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.44.96 (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The table as it is now is absolutely fine: numbers are now allocated to drivers instead of teams, so situations like 2020 in which multiple driver swaps occurred mid season would look absolutely ridiculous and be much more confusing. Having a footnote on the table is a perfectly acceptable method of explanation, in fact, even that is unnecessary since nowhere in the table is it suggested that results relate to individual drivers (to the contrary, it's the Constructors' Championship standings). The table conveys the information in a logical manner and fulfills its intended purpose, that being to show the results of the Constructors' Championship, not the Drivers' Championship. If a reader decides to ignore the note, than that is solely on them. Your chances of forming a consensus to change this is extraordinarily low, so with respect I suggest dropping the stick.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the footnote proves the table is inadequate. 92.2.131.158 (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

If I can extend on 5225C's point, this article was visited nearly 700,000 times in the last month, yet the number of people try to correct it/complaining about it is in the single digits. Your opinion/confusion appears to be in a minority. There is only so much we can do to help people correctly interpret the table.
SSSB (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It is generally understood in all forms of media that the number who complain represent a fraction of those who share the concern and is largely governed by the ease of mechanism of complaint. Editing a talk page on Wikipedia is far from simple or accessible and so the fact that despite this some people do complain about the layout every year should be given far more wait than simply being statistically dismissed. 92.2.131.158 (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Individuals will be given the weight of an individual. Unfortunately for you, the current format wasn't decided upon by an individual, so you simply lack the support for a change - as you are the only one advocating for a change. Everyone else seems to simply accept that this is how it is done - in exactly the same way as the official standings.SSSB (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Sprint qualifying points of bottas & ricciardo seems to be swapped: bor bottas, the supersrtipt shows 1 (but he won - he has 3 points), for ricciardo it shows 3 (but he finished the sprint on 3rd place - he has 1 point) --62.197.243.193 (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Those are the positions, not the points, as stated in the table key.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 22:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Piped links

Island92, I'm not sure exactly what you mean here by "see the same case as the new Mexico City Grand Prix". Does that, whatever it is, trump WP:NOPIPE do you think? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

If you look into my contributions I've made lately, I put Mexico City Grand Prix and São Paulo Grand Prix for each wikilink I found. Main pages are still as this and this.--Island92 (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Island92, ok, but they are problematic too then. If a redirect exists that can be used rather than a piped link, why would you want to clutter the article with piped links - especially when WP:NOPIPE advises against them? Two good reasons it gives not to use them are: "Unnecessary piping makes the wikitext harder to read." and "the number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page, and such links would also continue to work correctly after the spin-off". -- DeFacto (talk). 16:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I thought it would have worked anyway (nicely).--Island92 (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with DeFacto. What if reliable sources don't consider them the same event, the redirects made this easy. We just convert the redirect into the article. Now we have a massive job in the event they are considered a different events, and 0 gain if they aren't. SSSB (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Is not the end of the world.--Island92 (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Nor do I claim it is. But it isn't helpful and may end up being a hindrance. SSSB (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, I think it's worth noting here, for templates (navboxes), generally piped links are preferred to redirects per WP:NAVNOREDIRECT.

Also, always using redirects isn't exactly foolproof. We can't see the future. There is no way for certain to tell which terms to which topics will become primary.

To use the example from WP:NOPIPE:

For example: [[Leningrad]] currently redirects to Saint Petersburg, but one day it could be decided to spin off a dedicated article about the old city of Leningrad; when that happens, all existing links [[Leningrad]] will automatically point to the correct article, while the unnecessarily piped ones [[Saint Petersburg|Leningrad]] will not.

I can just as easily counter that with:

For example: Leningrad currently redirects to Saint Petersburg, but one day, some other entity by the name "Leningrad" (a band, an event, who knows?) may be become the clear primary topic; when that happens, all existing links [[Leningrad]] will incorrectly point to the wrong article, while the correctly piped ones [[Saint Petersburg|Leningrad]] will not. DB1729 (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Piped links are generally preferred everywhere, but in some circumstances, redirects actually serve a purpose. Now let's focus on what we're actually discussing, instead of comparing it to every other possible link on the wiki. The purpose of using redirects for the Mexico City and São Paulo Grands Prix is that, if these events become categorically different from the Mexican and Brazilian Grands Prix, all links to those events will still be correct when separate articles are created. If your argument is that it is more reasonable to expect a new "Mexico City Grand Prix" outside of Formula One, I will simply disagree with you on that. If I'm right, but we don't use redirects, that will require a lot of work. If you're right, but we do use redirects, that will also require a lot of work – so this is about picking what's the most likely. That's also the case with your Leningrad example, but let's not get off-topic. Ved havet (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ved havet:Maybe I wrote the above because I just found out yesterday Mexico City Grand Prix is a direct link to a badminton tournament. DB1729 (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

And if we are talking about "a lot of work" how many links are we actually talking about? Whatever it is, we've already changed, and reverted, a bunch of them twice. Also counting the user talk page discussion specifically about the badminton article, and this one, we're already digging a hole because of this thread. We have here the Leningrad example right in front of us. DB1729 (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ved havet:Sorry, I should do a better job of speaking more directly to my point. I will try now. – We cannot currently link to Mexico City Grand Prix because a) it's not a redirect, it's an article, and b) it's...badminton. We can't, that is, until after we get that article moved to the current redirect Mexico City Grand Prix (badminton). To do that, that redirect and its content will have to be deleted and its edit histories merged to make way for the move. Also there was a requested move in February to move the badminton article there in the first place, so all this will need to go through another WP:RM process. Then, after all that, we can have a redirect named Mexico City Grand Prix that points to the Formula One race. DB1729 (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding that since I wrote the above, this edit occurred, which doesn't really help the situation much. Nor does it hurt I guess. Just confuses my explanation above. DB1729 (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Striking my above comments because evidently I was wrong on a couple points and none of it makes any sense now after the page move a some recent edits. DB1729 (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I should have specified "If there comes a São Paulo or Mexico City Grand Prix that is more notable than the Formula One Grand Prix", because that's the only way such an article will stay as the primary topic. Not that it really matters, if the badminton event wasn't renamed I'd still argue for using a redirect to "Mexico City Grand Prix (Formula One)" or something like that.

Either way, "it's not that much work" is not an argument, because this is not about doing or not doing the work. If we do not use redirects, and a Formula One Mexico City Grand Prix article is created, that will lead to extra work. If we do use redirects, and an article that is more notable takes over the primary topic (and we don't use a parenthetical disambiguation), that also leads to extra work. If the link stays a redirect, it doesn't matter, so it doesn't affect the decision. So, the only reasonable thing is to pick what's more likely between those two, and decide for or against redirects based on that. You might say changing the links later isn't that much work, but that's not really an argument against them. I'm not saying the redirects are vital, I just think they're the best alternative, they probably cause somewhat less work and I don't see why not. Ved havet (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ved havet: Right and I agree. My comments were about the over-eagerness to do so and how it caused links to a badminton tournament instead of the F1 race. It's fine now, well almost. Talk:Mexico City Grand Prix (badminton) and Talk:Mexico City Grand Prix currently have yet to be deleted/moved, but that could happen anytime now. DB1729 (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion, of course agreed that one has to check what the article actually is before linking to it. Glad it's been resolved. Ved havet (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2021

China Has Not Been Cancelled It Has Been Postponed.109.154.80.53 (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Due to travel restrictions and the lack of a place on the calendar, it is de facto cancelled. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

To add to Scjessey's comments, it doesn't appear on the revised calendar, so when has it been postponed to?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2021

change from [File:Max Verstappen 2017 Malaysia 3.jpg to [File:Max Verstappen 2017 Malaysia 1.jpg or request wiki commons to be updated from a teenage to a mature age photo Ahlmannkarl (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Using a non-smiling photo does not improve the article. There's no such thing as requesting for Commons to be updated, Commons is updated whenever someone decide to upload their work under a share-and-adapt license. Ved havet (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Belgium "fastest lap"?

Did the FIA state that Mazepin's "fastest lap" wasn't recognized, or that no half-point was awarded due to him being classified outside the top-10? Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 23:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Mazepin's "fastest lap" was never recorded since it did not happen on the single lap that was counted towards the race results. No fastest laps were recognised/recorded. As such, the Belgium GP has no fastest laps at all.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 04:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

No problem, and welcome back
5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

A little older and a little wiser, I hope! Good to see a few familiar names still floating about. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 21:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

“Other points finish”

As a statistics enthousiast this drives me nuts. Why don’t we keep track of who finished P4-10? Especially since out of the points finishes are specified to the actual finishing spot... HANS33YOLO (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

We do keep track of all positions for sunday races, but only P1–P3 for sprint qualifying races, as they're the only ones that earn you any points. Ved havet (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

No we shouldn't set a different colour for every position between 4 and 10, like we do for 1, 2 and 3. Per MOS:COLOR, I'd say it's questionable whether the results table should even be using colours at all. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's what HANS33YOLO nor I was saying? Regarding the colours though, I don't see how it's an issue considering the guidelines, other articles like it, and common sense. Ved havet (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how the tables are a violation of MOS:COLOR. The colours used in the table aren't essential for communicating information, they are there for visual convenience. They also seem to meet contrast requirements, so I don't see how they are an accessibility issue at all.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring the "are the colours in line with MoS" tangent (I think that @HANS33YOLO: was refering to the sprint results, I've pinged him so he can confirm), the long standing consensus is to keep track of positions which contribute to the standings, or have some notable significance (the latter being the justification for listing poles and, pre-2019, fastest laps). Sprint race results only meet this criteria if the driver scores points. If we didn't take that approach, we would soon face requests to include quali results in the tables too. These requests would be reasonable as sprint races are officially the equivilant of qualifying in "normal" weekends (i.e. it sets the race grid).

In the event that points are no longer awarded for sprint results, we won't list those results. If points are awarded for "normal quali" results, we would include those results. SSSB (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the purpose of listing pole positions in the championship standings section, as points aren't awarded for it (other than at the 0.2% of races where sprint qualifying has been used), and the polesitters are already listed in the "Grands Prix" table of season reports. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Because (to quote myself) "[it has] some notable significance". Secondary sources reguarly identify the polesitter so we do to. SSSB (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Have to agree with SSSB here, poles and fastest laps are a pretty integral part of the Grand Prix results.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

We have an entire grand prix results table which already includes poles. I’m beginning to seriously doubt the point of including the poles in the championship tables. That’s just not the right place to highlight them.Tvx1 02:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that showing poles just makes the table even more cluttered. As a summary of points across the season, all sources should be accounted for, which poles are not at this time. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 04:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be quite a mistake to remove poles from the standings table considering their significance. Almost every place where a race is reported on they will mention the pole sitter pretty early on, it’s something considered pretty relevant that someone will want to know when looking at the results and standings. I don’t know don’t think including it in the standings table could be accurately described as clutter JamesVilla44 (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree, it's important contextual information and that's always been reflected in sources. I would strongly oppose any removal of poles and fastest laps from the tables.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of other tables and sections in appropriate articles where pole position is shown. The table in question is a points summary. Poles are the only notation to have no affect on these results. The other series that do include poles do so because pole position awards points there. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 19:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a bit of a slippery slope to me. If you remove poles because it doesn't impact on point scoring, then you can also remove fastest laps from drivers outside the top 10, and then you can remove non-points scoring results that didn't contribute to the countback. Since doing these things is obviously unreasonable, it is far more accurate to say the table is a results summary rather than a points summary. And since poles are an integral part of results, they must also be included.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with 5225C, it isn't a points summary, it is a results summary (hence the heading: "results and standings"). So the arguement "they don't contribute to points" doesn't mean anything. SSSB (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Russian flag in calendar?

In addition to Mazepin being unable to use the Russian flag, I am noticing on broadcasts that the Russian flag is also not being used when referencing the Russian Grand Prix. There is simply no flag, instead of the RAF flag Mazepin uses. Is this something that's been discussed previously? Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 21:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's been discussed centrally but I think it has been discussed through the edit history. To the best of my understanding, the WPF1 convention is to use the flag to represent the country geographically speaking (hence why we don't use regional flags for Tuscan GP, Styrian GP, Miami GP, etc.). SInce it's geographical instead of the flag used by the promoter, we can still display the Russian flag.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It's actually more than that. Becuase we are not Formula One, we are not subject to the WADA rulling (banning the use of the Russian flag in World Championships, including F1). The reason we have the RAF flag for Mazepin is becuase the flags being shown for drivers are a reflection of official sources - otherwise we would still have the Russian flag. The flags for the GPs are not a reflection of official sources - therefore there is no reason not to shown the Russian flag. SSSB (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't Wikipedia reflect official sources? Isn't NOT following official sources a case of WP:ORIGINAL?? Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 21:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Why are our flags for GPs not reflective of official sources, yet those for the drivers are? It is a glaring inconsistency. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I personally do not believe they should be. I always thought it was geographical, and I don't really understand SSSB's explanation. If we were to go on how they appear on the broadcast we would have to have " Styrian Grand Prix" which to me seems a bit ridiculous. If we were to copy the FIA classification version] then we would still use national flags (except for Russia) but I believe an argument could be advanced that we should also use their race abbreviations. As far as I see it, the Russian Grand Prix promoters were prevented from using their flag due to the WADA ruling, but since we are not the promoters this seems to be a WP:COMMONSENSE situation. Our tables use the flags to indicate geography, so we use the Russian flag even though the promoters can't.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

By that token, we could use flags to represent a driver's nationality in whatever sense we see fit, without having to worry about WADA or whatever symbol the media use for Mazepin. I agree with using flags to represent location rather than the title of the race, and the consequence of avoiding the WADA ruling with regard to the Russian flag for the race. I just don't see why we have to follow that ruling for Mazepin. It seems rather selective. The WADA ruling doesn't apply to an online encyclopedia. The bloke is still Russian, same as the track is still in Russia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

we could use flags to represent a driver's nationality in whatever sense we see fit and we do, by using them to reflect the nationality of the driver's license, which is who they represent in the sport.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we are using a little too much common sense. If none of the official sources uses a Russian flag, then we shouldn't either. The flag is still rightly represented on the event's wiki as well as Mazepin's wiki, but as this page is a representation of this particular championship (and others impacted by the WADA ruling), it should be reflective of the sources - which do not use the flag. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 02:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not following that line of thinking. We don't require a source for geographic indicators, the race is in Russia, that's not being disputed. It makes sense to use the Russian flag for the Grand Prix because its purpose is to indicate the event occurred in Russia. It does not make sense to use the Russian flag for Mazepin because he isn't competing as a Russian. I don't understand why it matters what official sources are doing in this circumstance, because the purpose of the flags in our articles isn't affected by the restrictions placed on them. We're trying to signal to our readers where the events took place, and I don't get why removing the Russian flag is helpful in this situation.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fairly well-established that with drivers we're indicating sporting nationality and with the races we're indicating location. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that WP:COMMONSENSE means we should continue to show the Russian flag. We are not subject to WADA restirctions, so why make life more difficult for our readers? SSSB (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I also think it's fine as is, but I think the argument presented is that if we don't use the Russian flag alongside Mazepin, who is Russian but can't represent Russia officially at the moment (but rather represents the Russian Automobile Federation), why then should we use the Russian flag alongside the Russian GP, which is in Russia but can't officially be a Russian event? Or, if we should use the Russian flag alongside the Russian GP because we can, why then should we not use it alongside Mazepin? For the record, my answer would be that athletes much more commonly don't represent the country they're from or live in, so it complicates things if we aren't going to use official sources on representation for the flags of athletes. Events however, are where they are. Ved havet (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Turkey pole position

Despite the application of grid spot penalties, sources would seem to indicate Lewis Hamilton was still the nominal "pole position winner" at the Turkish Grand Prix this year. This article (which misstates Hamilton's starting position) shows a picture of Hamilton with the pole winner's "trophy", which seems as clear an indication to me as anything else. I would, therefore, question the pole position label given to Bottas in the World Drivers' Championship standings table, on the grounds that starting from the pole position is not the same as winning the pole position award. And if there is no appetite to change it, perhaps this is one of those instances where a descriptive note is necessary? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

We have: "Bottas claims pole" from Formula1.com, "Bottas on...pole after penalty" from BBC, "Bottas on pole" from Autosport, "Bottas on pole" from F1i.com. I would therefore argue that this is WP:UNDUE. As an (WP:OR) aside, I suspect the pole position trophy is awarded to the fastest qualifier rather than the pole sitter (which is the same person around 95% of the time, hence the name, pole position trophy is catchier than fastest qualifier trophy). SSSB (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a fair assessment. Cases like Leclerc at Monaco this year shows that there are in fact circumstances where the pole sitter might not actually start on pole (or start at all), but in those circumstances pole position will be left vacant on the grid. When the fastest driver in qualifying is moved back by the FIA as a penalty however, the second fastest driver gets pole. It's important to remember that "pole position" is defined as the first starting position in the Grand Prix, not the fastest driver in qualifying for that first starting position, in the rare case where those two are different. If you start in that very first box painted on the track, you're on pole. Ved havet (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand all that, and I don't need convincing. Nevertheless, Hamilton was celebrated as the pole position winner after qualifying, and the picture of him holding the corresponding winner's trophy exists. I think this at least warrants a note of explanation. I would say to SSSB that while WP:UNDUE might apply, WP:OR has nothing whatsoever to do with it, since reports not only state Hamilton won qualifying, but also state he was credited with his record 102nd pole position. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a mistake on NBC's part. 1 2 Regarding the tyre, Hamilton actually gave it to Bottas after the fact, with Mercedes confirming the "102" was because it quote: "would have been Lewis' 102nd pole." Ved havet (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I believe an {{efn}}-style explanatory note may remove any ambiguity. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

A footnote has already been added (in the Grands Prix table, which is the norm) :) Ved havet (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

None of the sources you provided earlier actually work.Tvx1 02:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed, sorry about that. Ved havet (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ved havet: Christ, I didn't even notice that. I'm an idiot. My bad. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries! It's absolutely important that we clarify when these are the circumstances. Ved havet (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

So do we agree it's clarified then that the Pole Position Award is given to the driver who actually earns the right to start from pole position and that Lewis Hamilton picking up the trophy in Turkey was actually a breach of protocol? The official list credits the award to Bottas in Turkey. The only exception to the rule appears to be the Sprints where a "Speed King Award" is handed out instead to the winner, regardless of penalties for the race, of the Pole Award.Tvx1 16:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

That would appear to be the case. SSSB (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with that. But I would also state that it should be standard practice for an {{efn}} to be used to explain whenever the pole sitter is not the driver with the fastest lap in the final segment of qualifying at a given race. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It already is - at least for the races this season. SSSB (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

That is in the Grands Prix table. It isn't the current practice in the results matrixs (here or in the driver/constructor results tables.) SSSB (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I understood that order of procedure that the penalty was applied only after Hamilton claimed whatever position from qualifying. All the sources even state that Hamilton will receive the penalty after qualifying. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 23:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Has this been resolved? Another noteworthy fact is that Hamilton's time of 1:22.868 was never stricken or otherwise amended. Even if it's an FIA gaff, all sources state Hamilton won pole and was then given then 10-place penalty. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 19:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

This shouldn't even be an argument and is being put forward on cases for emotion. Monaco 2012 set the precedent. The pole man is the one who is listed as starting in 1st place on the grid after penalties: it is not necessarily the fastest qualifier. Spa-Franks (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

To answer your question Twirly, yes, this discussion has been resolved. Ved havet (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Ferrari note

Name team entrant reported into the table is Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow (as the season entry list). Note added to report that the team has entered with a different name for some rounds. Indeed, the team entered with a different name (only Scuderia Ferrari) from rounds 7-14, 16. The rest of them (1-6, 15, 17-maybe to 22) as Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow as reported in the table therefore is unnecessary to describe both cases. We have another similar case into the 2019 page season, in which Ferrari entered differently to the season entry list. They entered as Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow compared to Scuderia Ferrari as the table shows for some rounds. Island92 (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Island92: yeah, that's my bad - I misread the note. I thought it was Scuderia Ferrari [[Mission Winnow]]{{efn|name=Mission Winnow|[[Scuderia Ferrari|Ferrari]] entered rounds 1–6, 15, 17 as "Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow" and rounds 7–14, 16 as "Scuderia Ferrari".<ref name="entry lists"/>}} (bit I misread bolded for emphasis. SSSB (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

However, my confusion does highlight something - if I get confused it is equally likely that others will too, and therefore I still think it best to clarify. SSSB (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

What do we have to clarify exactly? Rounds show this information where the team has entered with a different name (7-14, 16). It is useless mentioning the others because the team as entered as the team name entrant in the season entry list. Island92 (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The only exception is that the team has entered with a second different name (Scuderia Mission Winnow Ferrari) only for round 1. This is also reported because we are talking about a different name entrant compared to that of the season entry list (Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow). Island92 (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Island92: it is worth clarifing because others may think what I thought - that we have neglected to mention rounds 2-6, 15 and 17 becuase "Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow" and "Scuderia Mission Winnow Ferrari" are very similar. If someone doesn't read very carefully they will make the same mistake I made - and highlighted above. SSSB (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. Rounds 2-6, 15, 17 are not reported because there is not a difference to the team name entrant. The reader must know it. As I said previously, Note was added to demonstrate where the team has entered with a different name. This is the only good reason. We did it in 2019. And this occurred for rounds 7-14, 15. Entry list for every Grand Prix is included. The reader can click on them. Island92 (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Island92: I know why rounds 2-6, 15 and 17 are not reported and I agree with the premise. I am just saying that you have to read very carefully and slowly to notice the difference between "Scuderia Mission Winnow Ferrari" and "Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow" and therefore readers may miss the distinction and therefore readers may be confused by the missing rounds 2-6, 15 and 17. I therefore think a different approach is necessary for the 2021 table. SSSB (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any difficulty reading carefully. Readers can do it easily as well. I'd like @Tvx1: to give his opinion. He made some edit in previous season about this aspect. Island92 (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I agree with SSSB here. There is a benefit here in being clear (even if it is obvious to you, it won't be to everyone as the names are very similar) and no harm whatsoever in including a bit more detail. A7V2 (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Island92 and A7V2: with your permission I would like to close the discussion here and migrate it to Talk:2021 Formula One World Championship (WP:CENTRAL) rather than ping individual editors here (which looks like Wikipedia:Canvassing, I'm sure its not - but without digging, it looks like it) SSSB (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Island92 (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

No issues with me, I only came here due to the edit summary! A7V2 (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@A7V2: your last edit summary came to and WP:3RR to me. I don't see anything wrong. That Note information had been left that way for such a long time, until yesterday. If you want to have it changed as well as make a change discuss it in talk page and get consensus. SSSB suggested it and let's wait and see different opininions. Island92 (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The above is taken from my (SSSB's) talk page and discusses this edit. Following mutual agreement I have migrated the discussion here for increased opinion/output. SSSB (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding a bit thick, in 1994 we have:

Broker Sauber Mercedes Sauber Mercedes	Sauber-Mercedes	C13	Mercedes-Benz 2175B 3.5 V10	29	Karl Wendlinger	1–4
					Andrea de Cesaris	6–14
					JJ Lehto	15–16
				30	Heinz-Harald Frentzen	All

I appreciate the table is now formatted slightly differently, but with this in mind (and indeed, applies to Renault 2009 etc as well), can we not have...:

Scuderia Mission Winnow Ferrari Scuderia Ferrari Mission Winnow Scuderia Ferrari[a]	Ferrari	SF21	Ferrari 065/6	16 55	Charles Leclerc Carlos Sainz Jr.	1–17 1–17

Spa-Franks (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Purely personal opinion, but this is exactly why I was against having sponsors in the tables to begin with, going back to the last I remember discussing it back in 2013/14ish. Too much clutter just because the same four words are in a different order. But, for the sake of following the same rules, if it's in the official sources, then it should be here too. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 20:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. I've never understood why it was stopped and I can't find any discussion about it. I would be happy to return to listing all team names in the entry column.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I also see no problem with this. Someone a while back went out of their way to manually change 2009's Renault and 2011's Ferrari, HRT, and Force India. They all should be listed. Admanny (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Is the different positions of a sponsor in a team's name throughout a season actually of any encyclopedic value? Is it relevant for the readers of these articles? If not, I don't see the need to go ahead with a format that can quickly become quite messy, with 2-3-4 lines and a flag icon on each. Variations for specific Grands Prix can be placed in footnotes if needed. Ved havet (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd answer yes to that question. We're trying to show entries for the year. The team has entered under several different names. A reader could reasonably know the team as any one of those names. This specific case isn't radically different, but, for example, we had Haas in 2019 which was Rich Energy Haas F1 Team for two thirds of the season and then Haas F1 Team for the rest, a change which attracted a lot of attention. All entries are of equal importance, so I don't see why we shouldn't make this clear. I don't agree that it's messy either.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Mexico

Don't really know where else to post this, but why on Earth has nobody created "2021 Mexico City Grand Prix"? It is a plausible search term, and we are already done with FP1 and 2 at the time of writing. BMB YT 500000 (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Because no-one has gotten round to it. I will do it as soon as I've gone through all the things that demand my attention on my watchlist (which comes after breakfast). But you are more than welcome to beat me to it. SSSB (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the information. BMB YT 500000 (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Swap World Constructors' Championship standings MXC Mercedes result

Swap World Constructors' Championship standings MXC Mercedes result. The order of results is always in ascending order, except for this one Basmols (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Fixed the table for all teams. --Marbe166 (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2021

Faster updates to the race standings. NsvkBVY5w3 (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@NsvkBVY5w3: this is a volunteer project. We don't work instantly. Please be patient and we will get to it when we get to it. Meanwhile, repling to these kinds of comments also means we spend less time working on other pages, and updating the results. Of course, you are more than welcome to contribute too. SSSB (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

AlphaTauri in World Constructors' Championship standings

The two lines for AlphaTauri in World Constructors' Championship standings are mixed up. One line begins with Gasly's 17th in Bahrain and the same line contains Tsunoda's DNS. --2A02:908:13D6:6D80:7457:6E20:8F25:FA15 (talk) 07:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

In the Constructors' Championship table, for each race, the team's better result is on top; the team's worse result is below; it's not "one row per driver". DH85868993 (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Could a legend above the table be made to indicate this, it is confusing to have something that different directly below the drivers table without any explanation. To only explain this in a talk page isn't good practice. ewe2 (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It's explained below the table. SSSB (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Flag for Alfa Romeo

Why is there a Swiss flag for Alfa Romeo? Isn't it an Italian marque? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.199.9.33 (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo is an Italian brand, but the team is operated by Sauber and competes under a Swiss license. Thus they officially represent Switzerland event though the company is Italian. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

São Paulo Grand Prix

I just noticed that the 2021 São Paulo Grand Prix is named 2021 Brazilian Grand Prix on the FIA site and in the official event en timing information documents. How should we deal with this.Tvx1 17:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

They did the same with Mexico City (they still called it the Mexican Grand Prix). I think it probably makes little difference, as we don't/rarely cite those sources. It does open the suggestion that we could write the Brazilian Grand Prix as an alternate name (i.e. "The 2021 São Paulo Grand Prix (also known as the 2021 Brazilian Grand Prix and officially known as the [official name])") SSSB (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It is a bit of an odd case. It might be necessary to review what different sources refer to these events as in order to establish the WP:COMMONNAME. I notice that the official Formula One social media channels are still calling this weekend's race the Brazilian Grand Prix too. I don't really know what to make of it. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you abbreviate it "SP" instead of "SAP"? Wolf O'Donnel (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Why? SSSB (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

SP for Sao Paolo. Wolf O'Donnel (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

But every other event uses 3 letter abbreviations, even those with two word names (EMI for Emilia Romagna, MXC for Mexico City). Going to two-letter abbreviations doesn't makes sense. SSSB (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes they did the same with the previous race. FIA documents connected to these two Grands Prix came from here and each of them had the usual name in the title (Mexican and Brazilian) (example) but the official names displayed were Gran Premio de la Ciudad de México and Grande Prêmio de São Paulo, respectively, which in this language are Mexico City Grand Prix and São Paulo Grand Prix.Island92 (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say that Mexico City and São Paulo Grand Prix are [b]the[/b] official names. Mexican and Brazilian are clearly equally used in official FIA and F1 communications. The former two rather are the commercial names.Tvx1 17:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Not always. On some occasions also in F1 communications they were presented as Mexico City Grand Prix and São Paulo Grand Prix.--Island92 (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t say always.Tvx1 09:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

“Inconsistent points across Drivers' and Constructors' Championship standings tables”

There appears to be some inconsistency between the two tables. For example, Lando Norris of McLaren-Mercedes team got 2nd place in the Italian Grand Prix, and his teammate Daniel Ricciardo got 1st place. This is captured correctly in the Drivers' Championship standings table, but in incorrect in the Constructors' Championship standings table. Constructors' table shows Lando winning and Ricardo coming in 2nd. There are other similar errors in the table. The error likely originates from the implied driver row in the Constructors' table, since no name is explicitly shown for the row. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shikari7 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: I see now that this was discussed below in "AlphaTauri in World Constructors' Championship standings" section and there is a note under the Constructors' Championship table explaining this. This thread can be removed. Perhaps make the note bold on the page so people don't keep creating these discussions ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shikari7 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I've moved this thread from the top to the bottom of the talk page, which is where new threads go. SSSB (talk) 09:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2021

Results of Alonso and Ocon in quatar gp seem to be reversed in team overview overall standing 89.15.237.145 (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

No, they are not, at least not now. Alonso was 3rd, Ocon was 5th, and they are displayed in that order. --Marbe166 (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2021

The results for Red Bull for Azerbaijan are reversed: Perez won and Verstappen retired. This is for the World Constructors' Championship standings section. 62.45.36.173 (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The table isn't one row per driver. The best result goes on top regardless of who scores the result. If Perez beats Verstappen, Perez's result goes on top (like in Azerbaijan). When Verstappen beats Perez, Verstappen's result goes on top.

We have the same case for every other constructor, and this fact is made very clear below the table. SSSB (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@SSSB: this comes up so often I wonder if it's worth reverting to the pre-2014 method of the constructors' tables. I assume there was a discussion about it at the time? Spa-Franks (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussions are linked in the Q&A box at the top of this talk page. I agree with the comments made there that the current method makes the most sense (if you understand that constructors' results are not the same as drivers' results), but I'd be open to an RfC to see what alternatives people have to offer. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Strongly disagree for the reasons mentioned every time this is discussed. I would actually suggest changing the pre-2014 tables to the current standard, not the other way around. SSSB (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Pole Trophy

This appears to no longer be a thing, please see the discussion here. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

DNS or WD??

Should Mazepin's withdrawl in Abu Dhabi be recorded as "Did Not Start" (DNS) or withdrawn (WD)? Kimi Raikkonen, at Zandvoort, had a +ve Covid test, but withdrew before quali, so this should go down as "withdrawn", as it is. However, any withdrawls after quali could/should go down as a DNS - this would be consistent with e.g. the 2015 Australian Grand Prix, where Valtteri Bottas was recorded as a DNS after being withdrawn with a back injury. Mbdxecw2 (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I would be very interested in the rules surrounding this. Using previous edits as precedent isn't good enough. Is there not an official document we can refer to? Declanhx (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

This is the official document: [1]. The title is literally "... Car 9 [Mazepin] - Withdrawal from the event. SSSB (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The document suggests that this is because Haas withdrew him. Of Williams never officially withdrew Bottas (i.e. a de facto withdrawal only) then that is an official DNS. It is not the rules or the race officials who determine if it a withdrawal or DNS, it depends on the process the team deploy. It's effectively the team who make that decision. SSSB (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Right but what is the general rule? User:SSSB Does F1/ The FIA have a set of rules with the definitions in writing? I'm here because I have a £350 bet on the line so i really am eager to know. Declanhx (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia's talk pages are not the place to ask for evidence to settle a bet. I only checked so that the relevant articles would be correct. My interpretation of the sporting regs, namely article 36.4 suggests that Mazepin is official considered to be withdrawn. That is the only place in regulations that mention withdrawing (i.e. withdraw isn't defined in the regs). SSSB (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand, I'm not here to ask for evidence, I was giving my reasoning as to why i'm eager to know this information beyond the wikipedia article. It was my thought process that the FIA would have a definition section for the given sections of the table key. I appreciate the FIA link for the withdrawal. Declanhx (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Result and Mercedes protest

The article currently says: "Ultimately, Verstappen became the 2021 World Champion after overtaking Hamilton the final lap of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix." Right now, it looks that way, but is "ultimately" really a good choice of words here? Mercedes have protested the result, arguing that the final lap should be annulled, as it did not follow the rules - and many commentators seem to agree.[2] To quote The Guardian's Daniel Harris, "Righto my friends, that is (not remotely) that. At some point, we’ll find out the results of Mercedes’ appeal. [...] Whatever you make of the final shake-up – and let me say again, I’m dubious at best – we can still marvel at the drive".[3] Renerpho (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

They will judge it tonight. It won't be days until we know.Tvx1 17:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

That would be nice. In any case, the issue has been addressed, and the wording is no longer problematic. Thanks! Renerpho (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

One protest dismissed already.Tvx1 19:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Second one dismissed as well, but Mercedes lodged an intent to appeal the dismissal.Tvx1 20:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2021

Max Verstappen of Red Bull Racing privisionally won the championship for the first time in his career though this is under appeal by Mercedes. Lewis Hamilton of Mercedes finished runner up; Mercedes won the constructor championship for the eighth time in a row.

>>>

Max verstappen won the world driver championship for the first time in his career. Lewis Hamilton of Mercedes finished as runner up. Mercedes won the eighth consecutive World Constructor Championship. Marskore (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done, an intention to appeal has been lodged.Tvx1 20:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2021 (2)

Max Verstappen of Red Bull Racing won the championship for the first time in his career. Lewis Hamilton of Mercedes finished runner up; Mercedes won the constructor championship for the eighth time in a row.[1][2]

Remove references, they are about the 2020 season, not 2021 season. Marskore (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Replaced the ref. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Free practice driver rule (again)

I edited off the mention of rule change where FP1 drivers for inexperienced drivers were mandatory. It was supposed to be introduced for this year, but in the end 2021 sporting regulations don't include it (rule 26.1 b). However, 2022 sporting regulations have such a rule mentioned (numbers of rules were changed, now rule 3.12.2).

Also we have seen that seven teams never fielded an extra driver for FP1, only Williams, Alfa Romeo and Alpine did that. Guanyu Zhou did only one FP1 so Alpine doesn't escape with that. Callum Ilott did two FP1 sessions for Alfa Romeo while Williams fielded Roy Nissany in three and Jack Aitken in one sessions. Also, according to the spirit of the rule, AlphaTauri and Haas fielded rookie driver(s) so they are deemed to use such driver in Bahrain and Emilia Romagna GPs.

I pointed this in April (see in archive 2) but it didn't get any reaction. Would it be suitable to mention that the rule was postponed until 2022? BleuDXXXIV (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

What we need is a source which says that the rule was delayed from 2021 to 2022. SSSB (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@SSSB: Would any of these potential sources help? 1: Formula 1 is set to introduce a regulation from 2022 that mandates teams to run young drivers in certain free practice sessions. - 2: From 2022, all 10 teams will be forced to run a rookie driver in two different Friday practice sessions during the year. - 3: Formula 1 teams will all have to run a rookie during a given number of grand prix practice sessions from the 2022 season in an effort to create more opportunities for young drivers. At present, teams have the option to replace one of their race drivers with an alternative driver during Friday practice – but only Williams, Alfa Romeo and Alpine have taken up that opportunity during the current season. - 4: All 10 Formula 1 teams will be forced to run a rookie driver on two Friday practice occasions in 2022 following a change in the sporting regulations.

Sadly, none of them mention that there was a delay that caused it. The closest I could find for that was this article: 5: Earlier this month, F1, the FIA and all 10 teams unanimously agreed to delay the introduction of the 2021 regulations by a year to 2022. The WMSC has now rubber stamped the move, allowing the relevant regulations to be adjusted. (...) Teams will also be able to hold a one-day test within 48 hours of the final race of the season to run young drivers. Up to two cars may be used for this test but it remains optional. Hopefully, something from this will be useful. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Mercedes protests

The controversial end of the final race, and the two Mercedes protests, made the news yesterday. I'd previously been unaware of the event. So I came here hoping to learn what the protests were about. But I find that covered in just two sentences, with nothing about the substance of the protests – despite it being the most notable event of the race, maybe of the whole championship. Maproom (talk) 08:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom: it is covered extensively (possibly excessivly) at 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. SSSB (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

So it is. I know so little about the subject that I can't judge whether it should be discussed more deeply in this article as well. I don't even know how the two articles' subjects differ (and I don't want to know, please don't tell me). Maproom (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I definetly think it should, but to a lower level of detail. SSSB (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2021

In the first paragraph below the picture, the first sentence has a grammatical error. It says, “... an end the...” and it should say, “and end to the...” 24.184.190.225 (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Error in "World Constructors' Championship standings" table

A number of Norris and Ricciardo race results are the wrong way round under the "World Constructors' Championship standings" table. It looks as if Norris' results should be on the top line and Ricciardo's on the bottom. The errors are as follows;

Hungarian GP - It states Norris can 11th and Ricciardo retired. These need to be switched. Belgium GP - It states Norris came 4th and Ricciardo came 14th. These need to be switched Italian GP - It states Norris won and Ricciardo came second. These need to be switched. Russian GP - It states Norris 4th and Ricciardo came 7th. These need to be switched. USA GP - It states Norris 5th and Ricciardo came 8th. These need to be switched. Saudi Arabian GP - It states Norris 5th and Ricciardo came 10th. These need to be switched. 90.251.38.240 (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Constructors' table isn't "one line per driver", the best result goes on top - regardless of whose result it was. SSSB (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)