Talk:2024 Formula One World Championship/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 2024 Formula One World Championship. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Using icons for teams in race reports
Not entirely relevant to this page in specific, but there wasn't any other place I'd put it.
Saying, for example, "Lewis Hamilton of Mercedes" makes it so a lot of space is needed just because the name of the teams needs mentioning, while an easier approach would be to use an icon, made into a template so it's easier to use: "
Lewis Hamilton" or "
Alexander Albon"
Now there are some problems with this such as it being expensive to load. I'd leave it up to you to check the trade-offs. Mohammad.darg (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- This only works if everyone knows what these symbols mean. Which they don't. Only F1 fans will reconginse Williams logo. Does anyone know what Toleman's logo was? I don't think so. The only positive is that it saves a small bit of space. The negatives are endless. SSSB (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Any question of whether or not this is good for users is irrelevant, there's simply no way this would be compliant with licensing requirements. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is compliant. We already have the logos in the articles for the Constructors. SSSB (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- What on earth are you talking about? Please re-read WP:Non-free content and WP:Logos as this is unequivocally prohibited. 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is not "unequivocal". This is not as black-and-white as you make it out to be, after all, all the logos appear on the Wikipedia pages of the respective constructors (Scuderia Ferrari contains the Ferrari logo). From WP:LOGOS: "long standing consensus is that it is acceptable for Wikipedia to use logos belonging to others for encyclopedic purposes". Several of the logos contain the statement "This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain." (File:Logo Williams F1.png as an example) and all the others could arguable be allowed under the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The only reasons to argue that it wouldn't be allowed under would be because it doesn't fufill criteria #3 and #8 under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy. But again, this is something that could be debated. It is not unequivocal. SSSB (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- That is a shocking misrepresentation of policy and not something I would normally expect from you. Such use of logos is clearly not minimal as required for the use of non-free content, and is clearly very replaceable (by prose). Again, such use of logos is very explicitly disallowed. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- On the contrary, you appear to be the one not understanding the situation. The vast majority of these logos is not subject to copyright simply because they don‘t pass the trehold of originality. Those files are in the public domain and the non-free content simply doesn‘t apply to them. They aren‘t non-free. For the few that are, stricter limitations do apply. There are other more important reasons why this proposals are unworkable though. Tvx1 16:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's a moot point, since the Red Bull, RB, Ferrari, and Aston Martin logos unambiguously do pass the threshold of originality, and depending on which version you want to use the Kick Sauber and Mercedes may do as well. They are non-free. So unless you're seriously proposing only doing this only for 50% of the teams (which would be comically stupid) then it does not even slightly matter if a few of them aren't subject to policies on non-free use, no matter how poorly you interpret copyright policies. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- On the contrary, you appear to be the one not understanding the situation. The vast majority of these logos is not subject to copyright simply because they don‘t pass the trehold of originality. Those files are in the public domain and the non-free content simply doesn‘t apply to them. They aren‘t non-free. For the few that are, stricter limitations do apply. There are other more important reasons why this proposals are unworkable though. Tvx1 16:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- That is a shocking misrepresentation of policy and not something I would normally expect from you. Such use of logos is clearly not minimal as required for the use of non-free content, and is clearly very replaceable (by prose). Again, such use of logos is very explicitly disallowed. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is not "unequivocal". This is not as black-and-white as you make it out to be, after all, all the logos appear on the Wikipedia pages of the respective constructors (Scuderia Ferrari contains the Ferrari logo). From WP:LOGOS: "long standing consensus is that it is acceptable for Wikipedia to use logos belonging to others for encyclopedic purposes". Several of the logos contain the statement "This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain." (File:Logo Williams F1.png as an example) and all the others could arguable be allowed under the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The only reasons to argue that it wouldn't be allowed under would be because it doesn't fufill criteria #3 and #8 under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy. But again, this is something that could be debated. It is not unequivocal. SSSB (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as we should we using names not logos, as just logos violates the MOS, and names are easier for casual readers to understand. Also, some of the logos are likely copyrighted, and so this also violates WP:Image policy. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- What on earth are you talking about? Please re-read WP:Non-free content and WP:Logos as this is unequivocally prohibited. 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is compliant. We already have the logos in the articles for the Constructors. SSSB (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose: Fails MOS:NOICONS and is a total non-starter for that reason. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, clear MOS violation. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
World Constructors Championship Error
On the Mercedes part of the grid, it's mixed up where it says Lewis won in Austria instead of Russell, the top part is Lewis as he won in Great Britain and Belgium, and Russell won in Austria 209.216.190.30 (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is not one row per driver. The best result at each round always goes on the top row, regardless of whose result it is. (This is explained in the text under the table.) Therefore the table is correct. SSSB (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Source needed for number
@Island92: Regarding this edit, don't remove sources because a source "will" be added in the future. That is an unacceptable reason to remove a valid citation and leave uncited material on the page. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @RxxingAddict: pinging since they have also removed the citation and left the number uncited. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- This source, being added next to Sources: into the entries table is enough, rather than having it close to a driver name or his race number. Island92 (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Ferrari HP footnote
Rather than edit warring, can we have a discussion (pinging the editors involved, not necessarily saying you are all actively edit warring: @5225C, Island92, Pyrope, and Joseph2302:) SSSB (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The sourcing for this claim was inadequate, as the source says they became title sponsor, but didn't say anything about car entry names, so is WP:SYNTH/WP:OR unless a source is added which mentions car names. Also seems rather trivial to me, as this doesn't affect the F1 season. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- On Ferrari.com you read Scuderia Ferrari HP. Only for an entry list in F1 they enter without HP. Hence why the footnote must be there to distinguish this fact. Despite being known worldwide as Scuderia Ferrari HP, Ferrari in F1 compete without HP. The footnote must be there. Island92 (talk) 09:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- According to the agreement, HP is a title sponsor. HP is visible on the chassis and drivers uniform. HP is not used as title sponsor only for the entry list entrant name. Why? Make it clear with a footnote. Island92 (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- On Ferrari.com you read Scuderia Ferrari HP. Only for an entry list in F1 they enter without HP. Hence why the footnote must be there to distinguish this fact. Despite being known worldwide as Scuderia Ferrari HP, Ferrari in F1 compete without HP. The footnote must be there. Island92 (talk) 09:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is exactly the sort of situation WP:10Y was written for. What name Ferrari uses in their press releases is of no consequence. We basically never report on sponsorship arrangements for this precise reason. In fact, generally the only time we mention sponsors in a season article is when teams enter with a sponsored name – which is exactly what Ferrari isn't doing. An announcement does not in itself make something significant, and just because something is verifiable (that is, that Ferrari announced they would change their name) does not mean it is of encyclopaedic significance. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, and so why are we keeping Scuderia Ferrari HP in 2025 and 2026 entries? Island92 (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have argued repeatedly that we should not. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Let's remove them. Island92 (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- This situation is different from 2025 and 2026. In this article, we have the source saying that HP should be on the entry lists, but none of the entry lists actually contain them. For 2025 and 2026 there are sources which say that Ferrari will enter under that name, and there are no entry lists for 2025 and 2026 to directly contradict this source (we only have the OR arguement that the 2024 entry lists not showing HP means that the 2025 and 2026 entry lists won't either). When we see that Ferrari are not entering under HP, I will support removing them under WP:10Y. However, as WP:10Y does not override WP:OR, it only supports removing the info from here and not the 2025 and 2026 articles. SSSB (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Let's agree to disagree on the 2025 and 2026 articles. However, it does sound like we all agree there is no need to discuss the press release in this article, and we will only add HP to this article if a future entry list includes the change. Is that correct? 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is an explanatory footnote, not a full discussion of the topic. You are making it sound as though there is a whole section of the main prose devoted to the ins and outs of this issue, but there isn't. This is a service to readers who may be confused as to why Ferrari's public identity is "Scuderia Ferrari HP", yet we don't reflect that here. That is a right and proper way for an encyclopedia to conduct itself. Pyrope 15:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Public identity"? Where, precisely? 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Their website, for example [1]: "Scuderia Ferrari HP" at the top left, the Prancing Horse / HP logo in the middle. Their press releases also use that identity [2], as well as all their socials. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- The question then is do we reflect what is in the official documents and on TV, or what's on the social media pages? It's a pretty obvious decision. The substance of any proposed note is only "Ferrari had a sponsorship arrangement". All teams have prominent sponsors and branding in their public identities (of course not necessarily in their name). Again, any note would fail the 10Y test abysmally. Ferrari's social media will change, their 2024 entry will not. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Their website, for example [1]: "Scuderia Ferrari HP" at the top left, the Prancing Horse / HP logo in the middle. Their press releases also use that identity [2], as well as all their socials. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Public identity"? Where, precisely? 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is an explanatory footnote, not a full discussion of the topic. You are making it sound as though there is a whole section of the main prose devoted to the ins and outs of this issue, but there isn't. This is a service to readers who may be confused as to why Ferrari's public identity is "Scuderia Ferrari HP", yet we don't reflect that here. That is a right and proper way for an encyclopedia to conduct itself. Pyrope 15:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Let's agree to disagree on the 2025 and 2026 articles. However, it does sound like we all agree there is no need to discuss the press release in this article, and we will only add HP to this article if a future entry list includes the change. Is that correct? 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- This situation is different from 2025 and 2026. In this article, we have the source saying that HP should be on the entry lists, but none of the entry lists actually contain them. For 2025 and 2026 there are sources which say that Ferrari will enter under that name, and there are no entry lists for 2025 and 2026 to directly contradict this source (we only have the OR arguement that the 2024 entry lists not showing HP means that the 2025 and 2026 entry lists won't either). When we see that Ferrari are not entering under HP, I will support removing them under WP:10Y. However, as WP:10Y does not override WP:OR, it only supports removing the info from here and not the 2025 and 2026 articles. SSSB (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Let's remove them. Island92 (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have argued repeatedly that we should not. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, and so why are we keeping Scuderia Ferrari HP in 2025 and 2026 entries? Island92 (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Failed verification
@Cerebral726: Can you please explain to me why table result needs a failed verification just because results are not sourced? I've never seen something like that before. Do not add failed verification. Provide a source instead. Otherwise keep things as they are. Island92 (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is totally acceptable to add Template:Failed verification in places where the sources do not back up the content. Saying
I've never seen something like that before.
is an invalid reason to remove something. Feel free to add sources that directly support the results listed in the table. Until such a time, the template is valid and should not be removed. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)- Source you added could have been added before adding failed verification had you looked for it carefully on the internet. Island92 (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- It could have. However, there is nothing wrong with adding failed verification, and it is considered helpful on Wikipedia to add maintenance templates where they are appropriate. Feel free to continue fulfilling them when I add them if they bother you so much. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, but I suggest you not be too much addicted to adding failed verification almost everywhere. Island92 (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I will politely reject your suggestion, as it is considered helpful on Wikipedia, whether or not you are a fan of it. I also have added many sources to Wikipedia, and I will continue to do a mix of both. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that, but first I think better to look for the source that matches the info given. You add failed verification, then you find the source, you add it by removing failed verification. Is not it a double job? Island92 (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- For example, you always add failed verification for drivers in penalty when the other driver involved is not reported in the first source. Why don't you go first to FIA official documents section to get a list of all penalties? You find the right one (as I do) and add it. Island92 (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- This takes time, even when sources are easy to find (I don't even know where to find the official documents) Ideally, Cerebral would find a source but they is under no obligation to do so, they may not have even have the time (I frequently browse wiki, and add maintenance tags on the go). Adding the tag is the next best thing, and certainly a whole lot better than leaving it. SSSB (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- There is no deadline on Wikipedia. And taking time to make constructive edits is just part of it. Tvx1 09:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- This takes time, even when sources are easy to find (I don't even know where to find the official documents) Ideally, Cerebral would find a source but they is under no obligation to do so, they may not have even have the time (I frequently browse wiki, and add maintenance tags on the go). Adding the tag is the next best thing, and certainly a whole lot better than leaving it. SSSB (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- For example, you always add failed verification for drivers in penalty when the other driver involved is not reported in the first source. Why don't you go first to FIA official documents section to get a list of all penalties? You find the right one (as I do) and add it. Island92 (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that, but first I think better to look for the source that matches the info given. You add failed verification, then you find the source, you add it by removing failed verification. Is not it a double job? Island92 (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I will politely reject your suggestion, as it is considered helpful on Wikipedia, whether or not you are a fan of it. I also have added many sources to Wikipedia, and I will continue to do a mix of both. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, but I suggest you not be too much addicted to adding failed verification almost everywhere. Island92 (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- It could have. However, there is nothing wrong with adding failed verification, and it is considered helpful on Wikipedia to add maintenance templates where they are appropriate. Feel free to continue fulfilling them when I add them if they bother you so much. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Source you added could have been added before adding failed verification had you looked for it carefully on the internet. Island92 (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Mid season changes.
can people stop changing it from mid season changes to in season changes because one of the changes was in round 2. the 2016 formula one world championship article had a change in round 2 and the title of that section is mid season driver changes. FerrariFan77 (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if some other article has a mistake. There a reasonable reasons to use "In-" over "Mid-" and I see no reason to use "Mid-" other than precedent, which is no argument at all. It probably would be best to change the 2016 article as well. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- that isn't a mistake, that is the way it has been done so just stick to the fucking way it has been done before FerrariFan77 (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- No. And it was explained to you that the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix cannot be a race in the mid. The case is different for this season compared to previous. Previous have to be fixed. Island92 (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- stop with that bullshit. it has been done in a certain way and no one else has cared apart from you. grow up man and accept that it is fine being done that way. FerrariFan77 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't mean anything it has been done so far that way and hence should it be kept like that. Please stop with these personal attacks. Island92 (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- stop with that bullshit. it has been done in a certain way and no one else has cared apart from you. grow up man and accept that it is fine being done that way. FerrariFan77 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- No. And it was explained to you that the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix cannot be a race in the mid. The case is different for this season compared to previous. Previous have to be fixed. Island92 (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- that isn't a mistake, that is the way it has been done so just stick to the fucking way it has been done before FerrariFan77 (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
FerrariFan77 has been blocked for being a WP:SOCKPUPPET.-- Cerebral726 (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Is it correct to list Magnussen as "excluded" from the Azerbaijan Grand Prix?
Glossary of motorsport terms gives the following definition for a result of "excluded":
Removed from competition before the race has started, generally due to an infringement during practice or qualifying.
In other words, a driver entered the event, but was prevented from starting the race. This obviously has not happened in Magnussen's case, since he will not be allowed to enter race. On the other hand, perhaps this is an appropriate exception per the "generally" bit. 5225C (talk • contributions) 16:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- The usual procedure is to leave his box empty. His entry will be taken over by another driver, presumably Bearman, so technically Magnussen will not have been entered at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, this is the current consensus. We recently had this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#Excluded in Formula 3 SSSB (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
We would need to wait for the official FIA documents to get the answer, however, I've been able to find a previous case in 2000: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_European_Grand_Prix, the drive participated in practice and qualifying for the team, but was excluded from the race. My position is that the cell is left blank, until an FIA document says otherwise. 151.224.2.69 (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Official document already published at the Italian Grand Prix states clearly that he is suspended, not excluded. Tvx1 12:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that Tvx1- I agree that he isn't excluded, as he's suspended, so just leave the value as blank for this race. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
When can the practice be changed?
Suggested to include second and third place, but that is "not the practice". So when can the "practice" be changed? Wikipedia has undergone many changes, so why not this one? Eivindgh (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Because there is an existing consensus against it that needs to be overturned with a new consensus in favour. SSSB (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)