Jump to content

Talk:2023 Formula One World Championship/Archive 3

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

Imola

A simple question: Should we leave a column for the cancelled Emilia Romagna Grand Prix and fill in with white-backgound (not blanked background) "C"s per the key on the right of the championship standings tables? It is not like Shanghai, where it was cancelled before the season, Imola was due to be the sixth round of the championship. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as I understand the C is only to be used if the weekend has actually started. See the Australian GP in 2020 for example: that had gone as far as having the entry list published and track action starting, but we didn't use C for the race result. If a free practice or qualifying session had been completed then we would have. Similar situation here. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
In any case, we don’t need a full table for this in the calendar section. We can deal with this more than adequately with prose. Tvx1 12:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I thought that it would be appropriate to have it still listed in the Calendar section but with the number (6) removed & the word 'CANCELLED' through all the columns (different from what we see now). I think it needs to be acknowledged that there WAS a plan to hold the race just that it didn't happen through external factors (& on the cusp of the race actually being held). I would remove it from the Results & Standings section however, which is what we see now. Thanks. Mickey Smiths (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Actually I've just seen where there is a note at the bottom of the Calendar section in relation to the race, so it hasn't been ignored completely (I shoulda realised). I change my vote: I think how it looks now is OK. Thanks. Mickey Smiths (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
it’s listed on the the calendar of the official F1 site, and listed as called off, so, yes, it should be still listed on there calendar here as cancelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.37.45.195 (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
How one website choose to present their isn't particularly relevant. In much the same way we have decided to include circuit location and they haven't. We are under no obligation to follow a presention format, regardless of how official the website happens to be. SSSB (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
How arrogant. One website? Only the website of the actual entity in question. This is going against Wikipedia guidelines to make stuff up; there IS an obligation to follow relevant sources. 98.37.45.195 (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
https://www.skysports.com/f1/grandprix/azerbaijan
https://www.espn.com/f1/schedule
https://www.formula1.com/en/racing/2023.html 98.37.45.195 (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
https://www.skysports.com/f1/schedule-results 98.37.45.195 (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies on sourcing information only applies to the information, not how we present the information. That is the decision of Wikipedia contributors alone. You are welcome to discuss and advocate for that appraoch - but the argument "all these sources use this approach" is not a convincing one. Least of all because those sources are not articles - our approach of detailing cancellations in written prose is not an option for those sources as they are just tables/lists. SSSB (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
It's literally F1's own calendar on their own website that shows it as round 6 of 23 in the 2023 Formula One World Championship (it's also shown as round 5 of 14 in the Formula 2 Championship, round 3 of 10 in the Formula 3 Championship, and round 1 of 8 in the Porsche Supercup on those championships' respective websites). This isn't the same as 2020 and 2021 where races that were cancelled mid-season were removed from the calendar. Are you seriously saying that the official F1 website isn't a good enough source? Nineixsixine (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Let admin work on F1.com. We don't really care what they do. The race is cancelled for the time being. Island92 (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll take that as a yes. Nineixsixine (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Nineixsixine, this is now two distinct issue. The first issue, the original issue in this discussion, is about how we present the information (i.e. should the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix stay in the calendar table), information presentation is not goverened by how sources do it.

The second issue is round numbering, this is goverened by sources (the raw information is goverened by sources, how we present it is not), however, as far as I can tell, F1.com are in the minority. For example, Sky Sports calls Monaco round 6. So does Motorsport.com and these sources are equally reliable. SSSB (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The second issue is round numbering, this is goverened by sources
I would argue that the official FIA calendar — which F1/F2/F3 use — should be the overarching source on this. While Imola was called off, it was not removed from the calendar. This weekend, the F1 session broadcasts and social media have been saying it's Round 7; same with F2 Round 6, and F3 Round 4. It differs to previous cancellations as Russia 22 and China 23 were removed from the calendar; while in 2020 the calendar was rewritten entirely without Australia.
For an additional source, the official FIA media kit for this weekend retains the Imola GP in the published points tables (p54) and season calendar (p55). 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 19:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
The major problem with this (which Island92 refered to albeit breifly) is time. We are talking about graphics and media kits that have been prepered in advance, with simple placeholders where editors can slap in the stats post-Imola. Neither the media kit, nor the the FIA website refer to round numbers in anycase, so don't prove anything with this issue. Where this is different from CHN and RUS is that those events were cancelled with time to correct the subsequent media kits and TV graphics. This is a WP:RECENTISM issue, and also a WP:COMMONSENSE one. It makes no sense to refer to Imola as round 6, because nothing happened. Again, the FIA and media kits don't call Imola round 6 (as they don't use round numbers at all) and I don't see why they would be the superior source. We follow the sources, not the one official source - otherwise it makes us no different that a satellite FIA website. SSSB (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
TheChrisD does have point that if the FIA include it in their results (i.e. the full WDC/WCC classifications they will publish tomorrow) then that implies they do still see it as being round six. I agree however that the media kit is meaningless. 5225C (talk • contributions) 08:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
The document for the Drivers' Championship and Constructors' Championship standings after the Monaco Grand Prix includes the Emilia Romagna Grand Prix in the calendar, as do the Formula 2 and Formula 3 standings. Nineixsixine (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The official FIA statistics portal does not. Please see my comments below. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

No, Grands Prix cancelled are removed from the calendar, as was the best case in 2020 impacted by the pandemic. On that occasion, as there were multiple Grands Prix called off, we made a table involving them. In 2023 is not the case for only two Grands Prix which said goodbye. I think it's only a question of time until F1.com removes from the list the Imola Grand Prix in the calendar website-section. In any case, we simply do not have to follow what admins on F1.com do.--Island92 (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Since FOM et al have been referring to Monaco as round 7 all weekend, is it time to revisit this? 49 TL 15:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
No. Imola race is called off for the time being. F1 says it. When we have an update we update the section. The reason why the race is still in the document is because F1 said not to proceed with it, rather than it will not take place in 2023. But F1 calendar says called off.Island92 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Although I changed my 'vote' earlier I still believe it should be included in the calendar. The potential exists for every round to be cancelled at the last minute (as happened this year at Imola). If that were to happen, & the current guidelines followed, then the calendar would be empty & would not be a true representation of the years' events (intended or otherwise). Events cancelled at the beginning of the season (or just prior) should rightly be precluded from appearing on the calendar but an event cancelled at the last minute has a right to appear (to remain) on the calendar. Thanks. Mickey Smiths (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry. But I don't understand the distinction. If all the remaining rounds were cancelled tomorrow it would still "not be a true representation of the years events (intended or otherwise)" SSSB (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The calendar would be empty suggesting there was never a championship. It would not be a true representation of the intent to hold the championship. When events are cancelled before a season starts the intent is that they form no part of a championship & therefore are excluded in every respect. Do not confuse the cancellation of Imola in 2023 with any other pre-season cancellation of a GP. They are not the same. Mickey Smiths (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
They are the same. This is a distinction you have just made up. SSSB (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Post-Monaco situation

Noting that there is a current disagreement between @BryOn2205U: and @Sience4Life:, which @Island92: has also contributed to, I think it is worth clarifying the situation as it currently stands.

After Monaco (originally the seventh race, now the sixth race held) we are in a situation where some FIA sources have retained Imola on their calendar (without numbering the rounds), where FOM has referred to Monaco as round 7 in the broadcast, where most secondary sources have removed Imola from their calendars, and where official FIA statistics have excluded Imola entirely and call Monaco round 6. Given the clear conflict between primary and secondary sources, and even between primary sources, I don't see a clear cut solution.

What I think is clear is that Imola does not count statistically. Nobody has tried to argue that, so I think we're all in agreement that the drivers and teams have only entered and started 6 races this season. I don't think anyone is arguing for Imola to be included in WDC or WCC charts.

What I think is unclear is whether or not we retain it in our calendar, and there remains some disagreement about this. However, this is clearly unworkable. Even the FIA are inconsistent on this, so I don't believe there's a strong official stance. It might be cleared up in time, or it might not. I don't think anyone can coherently argue that it still counts as round 6. The necessary conclusion from that is that there was a round 6 nobody entered. That's not the case. If the calendar proceeds as planned, there will be 22 races, and 22 race classifications published. This is clearly a 22 race season.

Considering this, I think it is (a) absolutely clear Imola has not statistical significance and is not counted whatsoever, and (b) relatively clear that Imola can be excluded from the round count and calendar, given that it generally ignored by secondary sources and excluded from FIA statistics lists. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  • You are correct, Imola had/has no statistical value, but we are talking about the calendar, not the 'Results and standings'. It should appear in the calendar but should not appear in the 'Results and standings'. Imola must be recognised as forming a part of the calendar for 2023 despite not actually going ahead. Thanks. Mickey Smiths (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Yep so if you read my comment you would see I was also talking about the calendar. I get that it's your preference that we do put it back in, but as I've explained I don't think that's at all feasible. Why do you disagree? 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
      When a GP is cancelled pre-season there is no attempt for anyone to attend that cancelled race (it doesn't even appear on a calendar with an assigned date [fully removed & only commented about]). In this case Imola had an assigned date & various personnel were in attendance at the location preparing for the race weekend during the preceding week. This HAS to be acknowledged. Imola forms part of the calendar; an intent to hold the race. Can I ask, if the race had been called off the morning of the Friday & before free practice had begun would you be pushing for it to still be removed from th calendar? I say the cutoff for it not to appear on the calendar was at the beginning of the year when the FIA put the calendar together. The fact entities were in attendance preparing for the race weekend means 100% Imola happened, but didn't happen. It should, at the very least, retain a spot on the calendar. Mickey Smiths (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
      If we take a look at the 2020, 2021 and 2022 calendar, the FIA, FOM and Official FIA documents removed the rounds from their brodcasts/online calendars/documents. Seeing as the 2023 Emilia-Romagna Grand Prix is still listed on those same sources' lists, I think the correct thing should be to include it, with a note saying it is canceled.
      There is nothing to discuss about there only beeing driven 6 rounds in the 2023 Formula 1-calendar, but seeing as these same sources that removed the whole 2020 Calendar, China in ´21, ´22 and ´23, Türkiye in ´21 and Russia in ´22 then excluded these round from the championship, and official papers bringing the total of races down.
      If the FIA, FOM and Official FIA Documents remove the round at the end of the year, then it should be deleted from the list Sience4Life (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    We did not act like that when multiple races were called off in 2020, 2021 and less in 2023. Those races were removed from the calendar, too. Island92 (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    They were removed well in advance of any race weekend even being attended. Imola was attended, as it had a date & an intent to hold a race. Imola cannot be compared to the pre-season cancellations of previous years. Mickey Smiths (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    It' simply like 2020 AUS. Island92 (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is totally unnecessary. The 2023 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix was cancelled in exactly the same way as the 2020 Australian Grand Prix. It is gone. Dead. Expired. Deceased. It should be excluded from any calendar and any results as if it never existed. Even if ambiguity existed, which it doesn't, we can follow the precedent set in 2020. If by some miracle the FIA is able to reschedule the event, which is extraordinarily unlikely, we can address it then. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly that. Island92 (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. The calendar is a list of events that were contested or are due to be contested. the Imola round is neither of these things. SSSB (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Race # of ?

On all the articles before 2023 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix it is written "Race # of 23" and the note "at the time of the event F1 planned to hold twenty three Grand Prix". Maybe it is more correct to "Race # of 22" and the note "at the time of the event F1 planned to hold twenty three Grand Prix"??? Because in the case as it is written now, the note is meaningless. 212.164.64.228 (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  •  Fixed 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
  • This has been disputed by Island92 for some reason. The infobox reads "Race X of Y in 202N Formula One World Championship". The number Y can be changed at any time, it is not fixed in position. The 2023 Bahrain Grand Prix will always be the first race of the 2023 season, but unless another race is added it cannot never be the first race out of 23. This is objectively true. Listing it as "Race 1 of 23" is factually wrong. Having a note to say that at the time of the event, 23 races were planned is perfectly fine. Actually saying there were 23 races in the season is simply wrong and misleading. 5225C (talk • contributions) 14:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
    • You cannot report 1 of 22 if the Note information says 23. This is also misleading. And I corrected the same case in 2021 and 2022.--Island92 (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
      • There are 22 races this season that are not cancelled. We need to be consistent: either don't list Imola on the calendar here and also list everything as X of 22, else we have to list Imola on this page and list everything as X of 23. My preference is X of 22, and the note explaining it was originally 23 is fine. Otherwise the 2020 races will be a mess, because the number of races changed so many times (and at the time of the first race of 2020, only about 5 races had been confirmed, so should we list it as 1 of 5 therefore?) Joseph2302 (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
        Would just like to note that according to graphics during qualifying (Q2) for the 2023 Spanish Grand Prix, Imola was Round 6 despite not taking place (listed as "N/A" for last 5 qualifying results) and Monaco was Round 7. As an example, this was shown for Carlos Sainz at 5:10 to go. A Doctor Who (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
      • What? Of course you can report that there are 22 races in the season, because there are 22 races in the season. The note can say 23 races were planned, because 23 races were planned. 23 races were not held, so how can a race be part of a 23 race season when only 22 races were held? You have not "corrected" anything. There was no error. You have introduced an error that reports to a reader that 23 races were held, but if they go to check the results of the 23 races, they will only find 22. Please explain how any of this makes sense. 5225C (talk • contributions) 15:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
        Question understood. I adjusted everything. 2020 1 of 17, since 2021 1 of 22. Island92 (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Las Vegas

Are we sure the race in Vegas is on the 18th? Not the 19th? The calendar seems odd 89.205.129.9 (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's being held on the evening of Saturday the 18th of November - see https://www.formula1.com/en/racing/2023/Las_Vegas.html
It officially starts at 10PM PST on the 18th, which means that for most F1 followers it starts on the morning of the 19th. It is absolutely correct to state it starts on the 18th though. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Show championship leader, #2, and gap in results/standings table

In the dutch version of this page (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formule_1_in_2023), there are 3 additional columns in the Results/Standings table, which display for each race who the championship leader was, who was the #2, and what the gap in points between those two was, after the race.

I think this could be a nice addition to the table. Especially for the previous seasons this would give a nice quick view of how close the title race was during the season.

I understand this is might not be a change I can just add without some discussion, so that's why I started this topic to see what people would think of the idea. MLtinus [TALK] 07:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, the current style is simply perfect. I said said because may be I'm accustomed to it very much, but the table suits nicely. Island92 (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
This proposal places too much emphasis on the drivers's standings over the constructors. It is WP:UNDUE. Having both the drivers and consturcors here would make the table excessively wide. And it isn't really within the scope of that table to give this sort of information. SSSB (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the current version has enough information but not too much. Differences between drivers after races if relevant can be covered in text in the race summaries, and indeed on English Wikipedia, prose text is preferred. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I'm a total numbers/statistics guy myself, that's where the suggestion came from, but especially the equal representation of driver's and constructor's championship progress is a good argument for not including it, or otherwise having too big of a table. MLtinus [TALK] 13:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I opposed the drivers’ championship leader table on the Dutch side when it was discussed but they just wouldn’t listen. This concept is just undue for something that is more often not a close battle. Most of the time the championships are pretty one-sided. Moreover Wikipedia is not a stats/numbers site, but an encyclopaedia which desires to convey information primarily through prose reports. That is something the Dutch version appears to neglect with regards to sports articles. They have tons of tables only articles. They are therefore not a good standard for us to follow. If anything the leader tables should be removed there, not included here.Tvx1 11:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, Wikipedia is not a database. Our articles already have a tendency to trend too far in that direction. This information is best presented in the prose of the articles about the relevant races. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

FP

Why don't we write about free practices (FP) in this year's Grands Prix; that is, I mean in 2022 it was written when and at what time the practices begin. Why not now? 212.164.64.228 (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Editors probably just haven't bothered to add it. It's generally pretty trivial and doesn't deserve detailed attention. Race reports aren't standardised (I would argue they should be), which means there's no need for them to be completely consistent year to year. If you'd like to improve coverage of free practice sessions, you're welcome to expand it, just make sure you include relevant citations for any content you add. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The example of the 2022 Dutch Grand Prix says that you can simply add the inscription "There were three free practices; 1st in ??:?? local time, 2nd in ??:?? and 3rd in ??:??" and the link that is used for the quali and the race. 212.164.64.228 (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
That article also includes mentions of the drivers that topped each session as well as the reason one of the sessions was delayed, so it's not just a timetable. But yes, using the timetable source multiple times is fine. 5225C (talk • contributions) 18:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The only reason this information isn't here is because nobody has added it. Any attempt to write a proper encylopdic entry (one that meets good article standard) would need information on what happened during free practice. See 2016 Spanish Grand Prix as an example. SSSB (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I can think of only one reason to make the Herculean effort of adding free practice times, and that is in that rare case when qualifying is not possible and the grid is decided based on whatever the most recent practice times were. It would definitely be an edge case though. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Round number of calendar

Please change round number for all races since Monaco Grand Prix plus one.

For instance, the Spanish Grand Prix in the calendar table is round 7, please change it to round 8, and all round number should be adjusted according to this website from formula1.com. 223.19.112.230 (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

We can easily put this argument to bed by noting the following facts:

  1. Articles are meant to be written from an historical perspective. We look back on how things were.
  2. An identical example of a race cancelled at the last minute was the 2020 Australian Grand Prix.
  3. The 2020 Australian Grand Prix was originally described as "round 1" of the 2020 Formula One World Championship.
  4. After the race was cancelled, it was dropped from the 2020 calendar as if it never existed, with subsequent rounds renumbered.
  5. These calendars are from exactly the same formula1.com source as the current calendar that still lists the Emilia Romagna event, but we know from historical precedent that it will eventually be changed to eliminate the missing event with renumbered rounds.

As we can see, it is perfectly normal to renumber rounds when events are cancelled. In the unlikely event the Emilia Romagna event is restored to the calendar at a later date in the year, it will not be called "round 6" as originally described. It will have a new number, with any subsequent rounds renumbered accordingly. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Major difference — 2020 Australia was cancelled and the calendar subsequently rewritten, expunging the event from the records. The 2023 FIA calendar has not as of yet been rewritten.
but we know from historical precedent that it will eventually be changed
So why don't we wait for that to actually happen?
[edit summary] I can't believe this is still being discussed
Probably because we've now had a second race broadcast which has gone by with the idea that Imola is still round 6, with Spain being described in the broadcast introduction as "Round 8". 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 14:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Irrelevant. WP:COMMONSENSE tells us it is round 7, together with the vast majority of sources. Wikipedia does not blindly follow one "official" source (in this case the Formula One management). SSSB (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. Is there anyone here who doubts that the calendar rounds will be renumbered, as they have in every single previous instance this has happened? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
FOM can insist all they want that Imola was the sixth round, just like they could insist all they wanted that JFK killed Bigfoot on the moon, but we would be fundamentally misleading readers if we claimed either of those things to be true, especially when the vast majority of independent sources don't concur with whatever FOM is saying for some contractual reason or another. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
as they have in every single previous instance this has happened?
Every single previous instance was either cancelled outright well in advance, and the FIA calendar adjusted and republished (2011 Bahrain; 2020 Oz; Chinese GP the last few years); or was cancelled very close to the race itself and remained on the results as a race that was planned to be held but never actually went ahead (2019 F2 Belgium feature race). 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 20:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
The official FIA statistics] clearly state Monaco is round 6 and Spain round 7. No phantom round to be seen. We can check your counterexample by going to the 2019 F2 results, where you can clearly see that the cancelled Belgian races (where the weekend had already started, unlike EMR) are still included. I find that a much more convincing source than FOM's calendar. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The calendar was not "adjusted and republished" following the cancellation of the Chinese Grand Prix, the respectively line was simply removed from the websites. All your other examples are irrelevant (2019 F2 is already covered). The Bahrain example is irrelevant as there was an agreement from the WMSC to reschdule the event for 30 October (so the calendar was rewritten to insert the event in), and the 2020 Aus example is also irrelevant as they had to rework the entire calendar (it was not an isloated cancellation). The fact that they are yet to remove the line here is both beyond me and irrelevant.
Give me one good reason why we should blindly follow one source (the race broadcast's templates/graphics) which were likely produced before the Emilia-Romagna event was cancelled (F1's website - for example - doesn't contain round numbers so doesn't support your argument). SSSB (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
But even the live broadcast on both F1 TV and Sky Sports said Monaco GP is Round 7 and Spain GP is round 8 in the title cards 223.19.112.230 (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Ok. The official FIA statistics say there have been 6 rounds. I think there have been 6 rounds. Can you perhaps tell me the results of this mysterious 7th round that has apparently been held? 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
That site aren’t the “official FIA statistics”. It is a stats site by Motorsport endorsed by the FIA. Documents issued more directly by the FIA still include Imola.Tvx1 14:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Two issues. Firstly, these title cards are made weeks or even months in advance. Secondly, (if you are talking about the title cards I think you are talking about), these cards are not independent from each other or the f1 management who I said above we shouldn't be blindly following. These are part of the FOM feed which all broadcasters show (because they don't film the event independently). SSSB (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Yet, at the same time we blindly follow one other source? I honestly don’t believe these title cards are made that far in advance and certainly not that they are unchangeable. These are simple digital graphics. And even a month after the event they still retain Imola with every round. The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced we should include Imola in the tables. The governing bodies clearly treat this differently to the precedents most refer to here. This is a carbon case of af an event that should be marked as cancelled in the results tables. Every single relevant official document issued by the FIA during Grand Prix weekends still include it. Tvx1 14:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
How do you explain the FIA statistics portal excluding it? 5225C (talk • contributions) 14:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to reply to both of you in one.

@Tvx1: at the same time we blindly follow one other source?, you are confusing my argument with 5225C's - their obsession with the FIA stats portal is beyond me. From the sources I have seen, the majority are not counting Emilia Romagna as a round (with their numbering). I also continue to believe there is a strong WP:COMMONSENSE arguement here. It doesn't make sense to continue to refer to Emilia as round 6 if the event did not take place in any form.

@5225C: can you please explain (for everyone's benefit) what gives the FIA stats portal more weight than any other source - or (more precisely) more weight than other FIA sources? Because it looks like this is the basis of your opinion, but I for one don't see the justification behind this. SSSB (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Problem with your stance is that official sources directly published by the sport's governing bodies, including official documents issued by a group of stewards, still count Imola as a round. And these sources simply trump non-authoritative secondary sources. Your last sentence in your reply is nothing but your personal judgement, which we should make. It's not our job to judge four ourselves what events did or didn't transpire, we have to simply report what happened per the reliable sources. And when sources disagree, we go by the most authoritative ones and not by ones that make their own synthesis of the facts instead of reflecting official communications.Tvx1 22:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Last time I checked, we follow the majority of sources, not the most "authoritative" ones. SSSB (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
What of the idea that the majority of sources have performed original research, by unilaterally deciding to remove Imola? 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 14:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
What of it? The only limitation on original research is when Wikipedia does it. There is no reason we can't report/reflect the original research of secondary sources, and Wikipedia does it often. SSSB (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@5225C As I have already stated, the FIA statistics portal is not published directly by the FIA, it is a stats site published by Motorsport Network which is merely endorsed by the FIA. The absence of Imola there might just be down to a web designer's mistake or a personal judgment call like ours. Actual official sources directly published by the governing bodies still include it.Tvx1 22:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
@Tvx1 and SSSB: Yeah I'll admit I have been bringing the stats portal up pretty repetitively. The reason for this is because, although it is not maintained by the FIA, it is endorsed as the official statistics source. The fact it does not count Imola is a major stumbling block to the claim that all official sources count it: at least one does not. So it's not that I believe it is the most important, overriding source, but it is inconsistent with other official sources and I have been seeking an explanation for why it should be discarded in favour of other sources, such as race weekend documents. Regardless of whether you think the stats portal is convincing enough on its own, statistics themselves ought to be a convincing reason: if the race isn't counted in number of races in the season, number of GPs held, etc. then there is good cause to believe it doesn't count at all. I'm not sure if this can be established right now or not.

Secondly, I think there may be an explanation for the FIA/FOM apparently treating this situation differently: There has been no WMSC meeting to confirm Imola's removal, so it still appears on the ISC. Other cancelled races, such as China/Russia, do not appear on the calendar because there was a WMSC in March that ratified new FIA calendars. I believe this is the most likely explanation, and if it actually correct, I still do not believe that it is a convincing reason for us to also include Imola. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Your going on a lot of guesswork here we shouldn't do that. We should simply reflect the most authoritative sources as they currently are. The FIA statistics is't such one, because that's and indirect publication by a website designer on the payroll of Motorsport Network. That person might have made a mistake or might just be basing themself of Wikipedia. The fact remains that publications stremming directly from the sport's governing bodies, including official documents published by a group of stewards do still include, and those are the ones we should follow. Tvx1 11:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
And assuming that your WMSC guesswork is correct, all this proves is that the stats portal is incorrect, because they have jumped the gun - not the other way around. SSSB (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2023

Verstappen had Fastest Lap in Austria (1st, Pole, Fastest Lap, 1 in sprint so 1PF1) Fabian0251 (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2023 (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. Also no citation given. Xan747 (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Pole in Belgium

This may have been discussed and decided a million times already. The "World Drivers' Championship standings" section lists Charles Leclerc with the pole position in Belgium. He obviously started from pole following the grid penalty of Max Verstappen, but Verstappen set the fastest time in qualifying and received the Pole Position Award. Afaik (and I may obviously be wrong) that means he is listed in F1 statistics as the pole winner. 93.117.220.196 (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  • You are right that this has been discussed countless times. The short version of it is that pole position is whoever starts from the first grid slot come the race start, no matter how they ended up there. That's also how F1 statistics count it, although it is a rare case for poles to be affected by penalties. 5225C (talk • contributions) 14:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
The pole position trophy has no bearing on the actual pole position. It only rewards the fastest qualifying time. It was the second year running that they went with tgis stupidity in Belgium of celebrating the wrong person, in both cases Verstappen who shouldn’t even have been eligible to begin with.Tvx1 03:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Free Practice Drivers

Hi all, just a thought, perhaps we should consider putting the Free Practice Drivers in with all the others, like we used to do on the older pages.

Entrant Constructor Chassis Power unit Race drivers Free Practice drivers
No. Driver name Rounds No. Driver Rounds
Italy Scuderia Ferrari Ferrari SF-23 Ferrari 066/10 16
55 		Monaco Charles Leclerc
Spain Carlos Sainz Jr. 		1–13
1–13 		39 Israel Robert Shwartzman 13

Phoenix84621 (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  • So I believe the understanding that we've arrived at over the years is that doing this (a) places undue importance on free practice drivers, and (b) makes the table too large, which is how we've arrived at the present situation (which is a compromise between wanting a clear summary of FP drivers without putting them in the season entry table). 02:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
This is not an "understanding" but a consensus. To expand, we should only be using a table in instances where prose is impractical. E.g. where every team needs to enter two drivers. For example, articles like 2020 Formula One World Championship used to use prose alone to list FP drivers. The table in that article actually only lists mostly redundent information (that was part of the consensus, not just my opinion). Any instances where FP drivers are listed in the main entry table should be changed to reflect the new consensus. SSSB (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Result and Standings, Sprint race table

Should we add a table to collect all sprint shootout and sprint, with winning driver? to get a more clean and faster reading from the World Drivers' Championship standings table? I can't modify the page, it's just an idea also for next seasons, if sprint format will remain active ShishRobot (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and the rough unofficial consensus is that this would place WP:UNDUE emphasis to the sprint (because it would give it equally emphasis to the Sunday race, which would be incorrect.) SSSB (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Mid-season changes

Does Lance Stroll's DNS in Singapore fit under this category? There isn't a temporary or permanent driver change due to this event it was simply a non-entry. Perhaps this information would be better placed as part of the entry for the Singapore race under Season Summary. GMWQ (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

He still entered the race and participated in qualifying, he just withdrew after crashing heavily in qualifying. There is no change from the perspective of the entry list. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Notes to the participations

@Island92: You kept reverting my changes where I placed the notes logically, next to the rounds (rather than next to the driver names). Since these notes explain why some rounds are included on the list, rather than explaining something related to the given driver's name, such placement is most logical. What's your reason for placing these notes elsewhere? "As made in past seasons" and "discuss with user Tvx1" are not very good reasons for such reverts, so please discuss my changes on merits. cherkash (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

These notes are, for the most part, to explain why there are three drivers entered for a round. My initial thought was to agree with/support cherkash's position. However, on second thoughts, these notes actually explain why a given driver was entered into a round but then replaced, in which placing it in either column is appropriate. Therefore, I am week supporting cherkash at this point. SSSB (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
@SSSB: These notes most of the time explain why participation in a GP is counted for the driver, even though he may have not participated in the race. So they really answer any possible questions about why a given round is in the list of the Grands Prix in which the driver took part. cherkash (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
The note cannot go close to the number round. You are mentioning the driver in the Note sentence, not the round and its respective number. Island92 (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
I think it is fairly obvious which round number 13 is when you compare the note to the driver name and round number columns (readers are already comparing the note to the round and driver name columns already to make full sense of the note (I.e. to work out what round the Dutch GP is)). If you don't think it is obvious, then we should be changing the note to specify round number regardless of where we put the note. Because this is a potential source of confusion regardless of the note's placement. SSSB (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
@Island92: The way I understand your comment, is you are trying to say something like this: because "X" (in this case, a driver's name) is mentioned in the note, then this note belongs to the part of the text where this "X" is encountered. This is not how the notes work, neither logically nor semantically. The notes explain some parts that may not be clear on its own, but whose elaboration inline would be cumbersome or undesirable for formatting/spatial/etc. reasons, and such note's reference is placed where this elaboration is needed. In this particular case, an explanation is not needed to justify why the driver is included in the table, but it is needed to explain why a particular round is included in the list of the driver's race participations. cherkash (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @Tvx1: Island92 (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I lean towards Island92's position here. If a driver substitutes in for multiple non-consecutive rounds, I could see the rounds column getting even messier than it already is. Having the note next to the driver is the most elegant solution. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
@5225C: If you look carefully at the notes in question, they are all about a driver's absence in the race (after having been entered in the event), not about substitute drivers. So your concern about messiness, although valid in principle, doesn't apply here. cherkash (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
If you look carefully at the reply in question, it is about multiple non-consecutive substitutions, not about which driver has substituted. So your dismissal of my reply, although valid in principle, doesn't apply here. :) 5225C (talk • contributions) 14:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Touche! :) On a serious note though, all these footnote refs should come in the end of the list of the rounds. So having "[a][b][c]" is not messier than just "[a]". cherkash (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
My concern is that it would be odd to see "1-5, 7-8[a]" with [a] explaining both 1-5 and 7-8. People would expect, based on conventional use of citations and notes, to see something like "1-5,[a] 7-8[b]". But because the note is about a driver entering/not entering, it's just overall neater to say First Last[a] and avoid the future argument. It still make sense and is prominently visible. Although I do see your point, the status quo is simply a neater solution. 5225C (talk • contributions) 15:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I understand and appreciate your point as well. I just think that sacrificing text/note integrity (i.e. the note being placed next to the specific text it is most closely related to) for neatness is against the spirit and the rules of WP related to refs and notes. And, by the way, "1-5, 7-8[a]" or "1-5, 7-8[a][b]" is totally fine, since it's ok to provide a clarification to the whole list of rounds at once - so no need for "1-5,[a] 7-8[b]". cherkash (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Cherkash on this. In fact, I see no problem in including the info for rounds 5 and 8 in the same note. I.e. One note that reads, "Räikkönen was entered into the Dutch Grand Prix, but later withdrew after testing positive for coronavirus. He was also entered into the Brazilian Grand Prix, but later withdrew after he broke his arm in practice." SSSB (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I disagree strongly with this note view. @Tvx1: what's your opinion? Island92 (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
In any case it is not a restore, @Cherkash:, because it was just implemented by you without initial consensus just because you thought this note view in the table had better visualization. Island92 (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Visualization has nothing to do with this. But the text/note integrity does. cherkash (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand why you keep trying to involve me here and certainly not why you claimed this should be discussed with me. I wasn't involved with any initial process deciding where the notes should go and have not made any major edits in that respect. I don't really have a strong opinion either way since this really doesn't seem too much of an issue. I can see the argument for putting them with the rounds because that's what the information relates to, but I can also see the argument that that would be impracticable when a driven returns later after a withdrawn entry or has more than one such entry in a season. All in all, I will reiterate the mantra I often find myself stating here, don't try to fix something that isn't broken. In any case, there currently is no consensus in favor of the suggested change. Thus I don't understand why Cherkash's change was correctly reverted on this article, but not on the other articles they applied it to. Having said that, given that this affects multiple articles and not only this one I would suggest that you start a proper discussion on the matter over at WT:F1 in order to achieve a proper consensus. Tvx1 13:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
@Tvx1: Well, actually something is broken. The text–note integrity, that is. It is one of the basic rules on Wikipedia: the references/notes go next to the text that they explain. cherkash (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
As for the older articles, I tracked down to when (I think) this text/note integrity was broken for the first time. It seems it all started with this edit: [1] (which didn't seem like much of a deal at the time, as it was done before the 1st round of 2017 was run - and at that point the editors were going back and forth about Giovinazzi, as evidenced in the history of that page, and they were more concerned whether to list Giovinazzi at all, and if so, then how). And so although this edit clearly broke with the earlier established practice of the proper note placement (see 2015 and before), it went unnoticed at the time. And since then, other editors have just been mimicking the note placement in the later instances (in some cases even explicitly pointing to 2017 article to mimick this practice). So yes, you seemed to have nothing to do with this, Tvx1. And I don't understand either why Island92 keeps referring to you. It simply seems that this incorrect note placement somehow ingrained itself in the minds of some editors as the practice evidenced by some reason (hence back-filling the missing argument as Island92 tried to do in the beginning of this discussion), but in reality it was just a fluke. Which I've tried to fix in all of the concerned articles. cherkash (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion to also mention Drivers and Constructors in their respective Points Tables

I realise its been the normal practice to separate the Drivers and the Constructors championships and in each detailed table to list only Drivers in its table and only Constructors in its table, but surely as they are both reliant on each other and for information purposes, does it not make sense to mention the Constructor the Driver has driven for in the Drivers table and also to have individual rows for the Drivers who contribute their points to the Constructors table values? Sure, we all know who most of the drivers drive for in each year but over time this information is lost from instant memory and one has to search, and it would be far simpler to name both the Drivers and Constructors in their respective tables. I didnt put an example here as you will likely get the point. Apols if this has been debated before, I didnt check all the archives. Thanks Wikipedians. Of course changing for 2023 would require changes all the way back for each year. That is a job in itself I realise. 86.40.65.129 (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Several things to address. Firstly, I understand the benefit of this "Of course changing for 2023 would require changes all the way back for each year." but it is not a requirement. I fact insisting on having all articles follow the same format is actually inhibiting to Wikipedia because it is "a job in itself" and Wikipedia is a volunteer project. Insisting that one change in one article means that every other article has to change is an unrealistic expectation and following this course of action is nothing but a hinderance.

Now that the rant is over (sorry about that, but this come up often and I find it really irksome) lets get to the issue at hand.

This has been discussed before. Multiple times. The consensus is that a) this is not practical because teams switch drivers and in some cases drivers switch teams. Taking 2022 Formula One World Championship as an example, this would require us to add an extra two rows to the constructor's table - one each for Hulk and de vries. In 2016 Formula One World Championship we would need two extra rows to constructors for the driver switches where Ocon replaced Haryanto and Vandoorne replaced Alonso (for Bahrain Grand Prix). But another two rows would also need to be added because of the Verstappen-Kvyat switch mid-season (as they had three drivers). Likewise, in the drivers standings we would need an extra two rows so that Ver and Kvy's results could be differentiated by team. And, although this change would be nice, it is not necessary, as the driver who secures the result is irrelevant with respect to the standings. Finally, this proposed change would make an already wide table unnecassrily wider. It is for these reasons that this proposed change has been rejected several times in past discussions. SSSB (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Closing rounds

In the Sao Paulo paragraph you may like to fix the typo, "..Alonso passed Hamilton for thirf". Thanks 120.16.15.101 (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for pointing out the error. DH85868993 (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Cheers, & no drama at all ;-) 120.16.105.248 (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2023

Change date of Las Vegas Grand Prix form 18th to 19th. 83.251.119.197 (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RudolfRed (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
The Las Vegas Grand Prix takes place on Saturday 18 November (local time).[1] So nothing to change. SSSB (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.formula1.com/en/racing/2023/Las_Vegas.html

Abu Dhabi is redirecting to this page

In the "World Drivers' Championship standings" table, the link for last column of Abu Dhabi redirects to this page. There also doesn't seem to be a page for Abu Dhabi yet, and the general Abu Dhabi Grand Prix page doesn't have any mentions of the race in 2023. Is this just missing? Is there a reason for this that I cannot find? PedroSheridan (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@PedroSheridan: By WP:F1 convention, individual race articles are only filled out in the week immediately preceding the race. Until then, they redirect to the season summary article. DH85868993 (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Is it the convention? I thought it was just best practice because WP:SIGCOV is rarely satisified until the week before. SSSB (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. Not challenging the points, but I do have one question: Was this changed recently for sporting events? I seem to remember that pages for Grands Prix used to be available well ahead of time. PedroSheridan (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
This is probably a combination of a) editors being bothered to create the article several weeks in advance. (editors are generally more interested in updating articles about GP's that have just happened or are happening next, and therefore don't bother on a race that won't happen for 3 weeks) B) sources about the event existing several weeks before the event (for whatever reason, track changes etc.) C) articles being created WP:TOOSOON but nobody doing anything about this.

If you think the sources exist, and you can insert them into the article - you are more than welcome to get rid of the redirect and create the article. SSSB (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Well then you appear to be remembering wrong. This practice has been in use for years now. Also the general articles on Grand Prix don’t tend to include the recentmost edition until after it happened.Tvx1 09:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2023

i want to change the picture of Lewis Hamilton on the top section of the page with the text at the bottom of the image saying Lewis Hamilton was third driving for Mercedes to Lewis Hamilton finished third driving for Mercedes 2A02:C7C:678A:9900:A80E:6990:8B90:1E1E (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey there, which image are you thinking of inserting into the article? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:01, 19 November 2023 (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. SSSB (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Checkered flag waved by

Can we add who waved the checkered flag each race? 2001:1C02:2B02:D700:111C:2BB9:AD20:8F22 (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Why? It's not relevant. SSSB (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Sprint winners

Can the Sprint winners be included in the table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Formula_One_World_Championship#Grands_Prix please? Thank you. Davepusey (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

We have discussed this before with a consensus for no. The reasoning behind this is that this would place WP:UNDUE emphasis on the sprint winners. SSSB (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2023

change the text under the image of lewis hamilton from Lewis Hamilton finished third driving for Mercedes to 7 time world champion Lewis Hamilton finished third driving for Mercedes 2A02:C7C:678A:9900:6D3E:8B33:7D4D:3386 (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

No. --Marbe166 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Why? It's not relevant. SSSB (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
It’s the race director most of the times. Tvx1 12:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Picture of the driver number 11, Sergio perez.

Could someone update the picture of Sergio Perez since it doesn’t make sense that the picture of him on wikipedia is from when he was in a different team. It should be updated with a picture from 2021-2023. I think this picture is a good candidate: https://heraldodemexico.com.mx/tendencias/2023/6/29/checo-perez-esta-enfermo-quien-lo-reemplazaria-si-no-corre-en-el-gp-de-austria-518004.html Fuad383 (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Please review WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT to understand why that is not acceptable. Wikipedia only uses freely licensed photos. If we get an updated photo of Perez, we would definitely want to include it. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Pictures in the lead

@Marbe166: This is not the best solution. Because it renders like this when you view the page using the default Vector (2022} skin. This includes all users who are not logged on. Notice how the images are causing the entry table to only take up a small fraction of the width of the screen. This is why the {{clear}} is necessary. SSSB (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

SSSB It's fine now, previously the contents box started below the box with the images, so there was massive big white space to the left of and below the box with the images. --Marbe166 (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that was my bad. I put the clear in wrong place. SSSB (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks all for fixing that up! I don't use the Vector 2022 skin so I didn't see that issue. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

World something Championship vs something World Championship.

I do object to these terms "World Drivers’ Championship" and "World Constructors’ Championship". Surely it should always be the Drivers’ World Championship or the Constructors’ World Championship! 84.71.193.186 (talk) 12:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Both are acceptable, although I'm pretty sure the former is the official title. SSSB (talk) 12:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Formula_One_World_Championship/Archive_3&oldid=1216404694"