Jump to content

Talk:Formula One/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Request for Comment on article title

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The RfC is improper as WP:RFCNOT says that RfC are not to be used for renaming pages. The correct process is WP:RM and this was done recently, being closed on 8 June as "Not moved". It seems apparent that there is no consensus for change and so the title will remain as "Formula One". Andrew🐉(talk) 14:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Should this article be titled "Formula One" or "Formula 1"? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Comment: yes, there was a requested move that was only closed two or three days ago. However, RM discussions are only open for a week and given the scale of the changes that such a move would bring about, I think an RfC is more appropriate. Following the aforementioned RM discussion and some of the feedback provided, I would also like to suggest that regular Formula One editors limit their responses to others—the more we try to address each other, the harder it is for uninvolved editors to participate. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Formula One- we just had a move discussion with clear consensus not to move the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Formula One - per the arguments and resulting clear consensus in the discussion directly above this one. I also ask (given one directly follows the other) that the arguments of the RM get taken into account, it is a different process but it tries to make the same change..
    SSSB (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Formula 1: this is a WP:COMMONNAME issue:
  1. The sport's administration and governing body are inconsistent in whether they use the number or thr letter.
  2. The sport is consistently presented to the public as "Formula 1". This includes in race broadcasts, in media and in promotional material produced by the sport. ([1])
  3. Competitors and stakeholders in the sport consistently use the number. Many of these sources are the sources used in Wikipedia articles. ([2] [3])
  4. Third-party media reporting on the sport use the number. ([4] [5])
  5. In the wider context of FIA-supported open-wheel racing, numbers are consistently used.
The sport is most recogniseable to the general public as "Formula 1". Wikipedia is the only source that consistently uses the word. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Previous discussions have suggested this may not necessarily be the case. What new evidence do you have which might change the opinions of those who opposed you in that discussion?
SSSB (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:TITLE says the following: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles." As I said, the number is used far more frequently than the word across a range of sources. Most importantly, we are not using these articles to detail an abstract concept, but rather a tangible thing. The reader of the article can witness the sport for themselves, and when they do, the sport is presented as "Formula 1". Both mainstream media (think ABC, BBC, ESPN, Sky, etc.) and specislist media (Autosport, Speedcafe, RaceFans, etc.) use the number. "Formula 1" is the most recogniseable form of the name and also the most natural. The only source that I can find which consistently uses the word is Wikipedia, which tells me that we've got the name wrong. "Formula One" might be the official name in some FIA documentation, but WP:OFFICIAL states "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy." You yourself acknowledged that "Formula One" is only used in some official documents and legal entities, so between COMMONNAME, TITLE and OFFICIAL, "Formula 1" is the name that fits best. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Given all that was mentioned in the previous discussion you haven't answered my question.
SSSB (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Please show me the policy that says I cannot re-use arguments. They might have been rejected a year ago, but that doesn't mean they will automatically be rejected now, considering that a) new editors are participating in this discussion and b) people can change their minds. Also, I don't recall pointing out that Wikipedia is the only place that consistently uses the word last time. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I never said you couldn't re-use arguments but if those arguements didn't win you the arguement 18 months ago it seems unlikly that it would do so know. 18 months isn't a long time
SSSB (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  1. Yes, they are inconsistent. But surely that's as much an argument for maintaining the status quo as it is for supporting a change.
  2. For this point you've provided a link to www.formula1.com - but I (and others who agree with me) have conceded that FOM prefer F1. So linking to their website isn't really proving anything further. You can see my full comments above on FOM, Formula One Licensing etc.
  3. From a cursory review I'd largely concede this point. I would also suggest [original research here and not to be admitted as evidence :) ] this is very likely to be written into their commercial agreements with FOM - i.e. "you will use F1 and not Formula One"
  4. Third party sources do not exclusively use F1 over Formula One. e.g.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]
  5. From a cursory review I'd largely concede this point. Having said that, I go back to my original point (from conversation above). "even if it wasn't and it just came down to common usage, it would still be a coin toss. ....a strong bias toward one term or the other does not exist here." Mark83 (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment @Mark83: inconsistency in the presentation of the sport by its administration is not an argument to keep the word because of the existence of other sources. While no preference is shown by the administration for one name, media reporting on the sport do show a clear preference. The majority of sources from the majority of publications use the number, both in general and in the sources used as references in Wikipedia articles (please show me where the Clydebank Post is regularly used in articles). Ultimately, Wikipedia itself is the only major source the consistently uses the word, which means the article title violates COMMONNAME. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
      The fact that you've selected one source to take issue with and ignored other sources makes this feel slightly disingenuous (BBC, Reuters, RTE). And I included that one simply because it was recent (this week). Can you direct me to the Wikipedia policy which says a source is only usable in Wikipedia when it "is regularly used in articles"? That's rhetorical both because such a policy doesn't exist and because I've spent as much time as I'm willing to on this matter. I've made my views clear and feel this is becoming an incredibly unproductive use of everyone's time - at a large opportunity cost. I'm not saying the question and conversation isn't valid, but I agree with concerns raised below about how this has been handled. Mark83 (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
      • @Mark83: "The fact that you've selected one source to take issue with and ignored other sources makes this feel slightly disingenuous." Really? You're presenting it as being representative of the media's use of "one" when it's a small local paper with a low circulation and (as far as I can tell), little regular coverage of the sport. This pales in comparison to dedicated publications like Autosport and Speedcafe which regularly use the number. Moreover, the range of sources you present are almost exclusively from the UK and Ireland when sources from continental Europe, North America and Australia all use the number regularly. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
        • ABC News (US)
          Sydney Morning Herald
          Sky News UK-based but I don't see why you have a problem with that.
          ESPN (Uses both, but that proves my point not your's).
          ESPN (See above)
          The Age, Australia
          Brisbane Times
          The Economic Times, India Circulation 368k vs Autosport's 14k
          BusinessDay, South Africa
          eurosport
          The Holywood Reporter
          New York Times
          National Post, Canada
          Gulf Daily News
          "Champion driver rebounded from the last rites after Grand Prix crash", The Washington Post, 22 May 2019. 9 instances of "Formula One" and 0 instances of "F1"
          China Daily
          USA Today
          etc.
          etc. And I don't mean "etc." flippantly. I'm stressing again there are 1000s of examples of the terms being interchangeable, and not just in UK-based publications
          Respectfully, please don't @ me again in this conversation. You are of course entitled to reply here if you wish for others to see, but I don't want the notification. It just sucks me back in to a now unproductive and repetitive conversation that I don't want any further part in. Mark83 (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Well, I'm sorry you find it inconvenient. Especially since you have not bothered to address all of the points that I raised. Both COMMONNAME and OFFICIAL point out that article titles should be based on what is recognisable to the audience, so how do you explain this? The broadcast of a race is a primary source and perhaps the best source available. It clearly prefers the use of the number. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
            • WP:PRIMARY - secondry sources are prefered and there is no indication that secondry sources prefer the number. Also, as I pointed out in the RM above, race broadcasts use both the word and the number.
              SSSB (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
              • Oh, you mean when there's a giant FORMULA 1 on screen and a "Formula One Administration Ltd." in small print at the bottom? That's the holding company that owns the broadcast rights. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
                • The use with the "1" is hardly used either, cameras tend to focus on the going ons on the podium, not the text below it. Noether is used during the actually race itself. As far as I can tell (by watching races) viewers are exposed to the number just as much as the word.
                  SSSB (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
                  • Then you and I seem to be watching two different races (and yes, I get the world feed), since the only time I have ever seen the word is in the fine print, which is for copyright purposes. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Then you should know they rarely use 1 or one, and (as you just admitted) they use both. Anyway this goes way beyond what people see on TV. Most people dont watch F1 and therefore most people see it on the news. As has been shown above news sites use both 1 and one and I am still unconvinced 1 is used more than one.
SSSB (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

            • That you say I've "not bothered" is insulting. You said "Moreover, the range of sources you present are almost exclusively from the UK and Ireland when sources from continental Europe, North America and Australia all use the number regularly." and I spent a considerable amount of time providing you with evidence to the contrary (which you have completely ignored) On the wider issue and the image of the F1 brand specifically - if you read my comments in the RfC above and also the RM my views are very clear on that. I chose not to state them again and again. But thank you for so effectively demonstrating the unproductive and repetitive nature of this whole conversation.Mark83 (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
              • "That you say I've 'not bothered' is insulting." I outlined the way the number is used in the media, by competitors, in the presentation of the sport to the viewer and in the context of global motorsport. You have so far addressed the media and then declared the conversation to be not worth your time. Then you came back to post another message despite the way I didn't tag you, per your request. So I get the impression that you were never open to alternatives and instead only intended to do enough to declare the conversation over. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I reassert that I find your statement insulting. And despite quoting it in the reply above you've completely ignored that. I am acting in good faith and have clearly set out my arguments at several points in this whole process including in the presentation of the sport to the viewer and in the context of global motorsport. If you haven't read them them that's your choice but why should I copy and paste them again and again? This is part of my concern about the unproductive nature of this. "I get the impression that you were never open to alternatives and instead only intended to do enough to declare the conversation over" is a further insult. Does not being open to alternatives mean not rolling over and accepting what you want? And any fair minded reading of what I said would not conclude that I was declaring the conversation over; The conversation will continue with our without me. I was expressing my frustrating that the conversation is going in circles. Finally on "Then you came back to post another message despite the way I didn't tag you, per your request." -- Whilst I do appreciate you acceding to that request, I am perfectly entitled to reply if I choose. And I replied because I find your conduct objectionable and impolite. Mark83 (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

"Does not being open to alternatives mean not rolling over and accepting what you want?"
Not at all. Part of the consensus-building process is persuading people to change their minds. To that end, I made an argument for change based on four things. You chose to focus on one of them and then decided that was it. Can you perhaps understand my cynicism when you do that?
One of the main arguments until now has been "there is no clear preference by the sport for the word or the number". However, this is problematic for two reasons: firstly, if there is no clear preference by the sport, then either the number or the word could be used. It is not an argument for keeping the word because the argument can be applied both ways. And secondly, if there is no clear preference by the sport, then we need to look at alternative sources. One of those is the media, but there are other sources, too—like event promoters or competitors and media produced by the sport (such as formula1.com, race broadcasts and licenced products). COMMONNAME makes it clear that article titles should be recognisable, and if you watch a race the number is consistently used in on-screen graphics. The sport is clearly presented to the viewer as "Formula 1".
If there is no clear preference from the sport for the use of the number or the word, then this discussion should consider all potential sources. But you haven't done that. I'm paraphrasing here, but your argument amounts to "there is no clear preference from the sport and there is no clear preference in the media, so we should keep using the word". This is despite the lack of clear preference for the use of the word, and you have refused to consider other sources that could provide clarity. And ultimately, it comes down to this: Wikipedia is the only source I can find that consistently uses the word. That tells me the article violates COMMONNAME because we are using a naming convention that no-one else is. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • If you admit that there is no established preference within the sport, then why would we use an abbreviation? It is very clear to any literate, English-speaking person that 1 and One are pronounced and read identically. With that in mind, in the medium of a television broadcast it would be logical to use an abbreviation to save space. One the other hand, the official name of the championship itself spells out One as a word. Given they are read the same way and refer to the same thing, what on earth is your reasoning for using an abbreviation over the official spelling? I am not convinced whatsoever by your insistence that COMMONNAME resolves this, because as you have stated, there is no existing preference. There is, however, an official name.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 08:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @User:Mclarenfan17. I am really disappointed you chose to include another insult. For the record and to refute your comment on cynicism:
    [16] Actually you made an argument based on 5 points.
    [17] I replied on each of those 5 points.
    [18] You replied, where your focus was largely on your issue with 1 of the sources I included.
    [19] I took issue with that. I also used the words I've spent as much time as I'm willing to on this matter. I've made my views clear and feel this is becoming an incredibly unproductive use of everyone's time. I know that's a bit laughable because I'm still involved. But any fair minded reading of that wasn't me declaring the end of the discussion, but rather my withdrawal with a plea that it's unproductive. I stand by that concern.
    [20] You replied again taking issue with the 1 source and the fact that they were UK/ROI
    [21] I replied with 17 recent North American, South Africa, Chinese, European and Australian examples of respected and wide circulation news sources using Formula One.
    [22] You accused me of not answering all your points. And directed me to a photo of the F1 brand. This ignores my previous comments where I have addressed this in detail.
    [23] My reply along those lines.
    [24] You said "the number is used in the media, by competitors, in the presentation of the sport to the viewer and in the context of global motorsport." and I've only addressed one. As I've said all along I have addressed them all previously.
    [25] My reply yesterday.
    [26] Your comment today where you have provided a small number of sources, none of which disprove what I have been saying. You note promoters, competitors and media produced by the sport (such as formula1.com, race broadcasts and licenced products). Promoters sign contracts with Formula One Group and will call the race what they're told to call it. Media produced by the sport is produced by/for Formula One Group (obviously). I have been saying all through this exhausting conversation that I accepted that Formula One Group clearly prefers the F1 brand. Both in linked conversations directly above and way back on 3rd June in the RM. [27]
    Now you could easily provide 500 references of teams or media using Formula 1. But my fundamental point is I could easily provide 500 examples contrary. Therefore, I'm back to my original point, such a strong bias toward one term of the other does not exist here. You are hanging a lot of weight on what the owner of the brand prefers. But that's not the only factor here. I really object to the suggestion of cynicism on my part. I have been acting in good faith all along and clearly presenting my views. You & I aren't going to agree and that's OK.Mark83 (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm just going to focus on one part of this for the time being simply because there's so many loose threads dangling that we'll tie ourselves in knots if we're always trying to respond to everything at once. We can try to make some progress here and then see what happens:
"Promoters sign contracts with Formula One Group and will call the race what they're told to call it."
You're presenting the Formula One Group as the ultimate authority here—that what they say goes. So, if I understand you correctly, the formal name of the 2020 Australian Grand Prix, which is "Formula 1 Rolex Australian Grand Prix 2020", is the name that the Formula One Group told the promoters to use. I don't really see how that fits with the rest of your argument because you're saying that the Formula One Group is telling promoters to use the name "Formula 1". Surely that suggests that they do have a preference—why else would they specify it? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I have said all along that the Formula One Group has a preference for Formula 1, i.e in the RM, in my first comment on this RfC, and in comments above. I have stated that when signing a contract with a promoter they will naturally agree what the event is called, and this will align with FOG's marketing/branding preferences. I have also said consistently and clearly that FOG's branding preference isn't the only factor in deciding what this article is called and "presenting the Formula One Group as the ultimate authority here" is the exact opposite of what I'm doing. "Tie ourselves in knots?" We're going in circles! Mark83 (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
"I have also said consistently and clearly that FOG's branding preference isn't the only factor in deciding what this article is called."
And so I come back to my question: if there is no clear preference for the word or the number, why use the word? I'm totally willing to find a compromise solution here, and I think I have found one, but the comment that you responded to was quite clearly me trying to offer an olive branch and so I feel like anything I say is going to be met with hostility. I'm willing to share a possible solution—I'll post it as a subsection—but not if I'm going to be wasting my time. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Besides - it's entirely possible for two (or more) variances of a naming convention to co-exist: Tire & Motorcycle tyre comes instantly to mind. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Formula One. Yes, Formula 1 is used often, but in official documents the championship is referred to as Formula One (as SSSB brought up in last week's move request). Although WP:COMMONNAME has been brought up to argue for a change, I do not find it a compelling reason to move the article. When people refer to Formula One they are generally referring to the championship itself, not the website/social channels/stock ticker or any of the myriad of situations where it is referred to as Formula 1 or F1. It would obviously follow that the official name would take precedent over the abbreviation. I also concur with other editors that reopening this topic only a few days after the previous effort failed seems to be an attempt to override consensus.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 08:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment' @5225C:
"in official documents the championship is referred to as Formula One"
Please read WP:OFFICIAL, which says:
"People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."
WP:COMMONNAME is preferred.
"When people refer to Formula One they are generally referring to the championship itself, not the website/social channels/stock ticker or any of the myriad of situations where it is referred to as Formula 1 or F1."
Except that those "myriad of situations" are precisely how people become aware of Formula 1 in the first place, and it is always presented to them as "Formula 1". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Not always, there a places where the word is used, you watch a race you see both the word and the number being used.
SSSB (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
That argument sort of falls down when you consider that the championship is the Formula One championship. The abbreviation may be used for some communications, but that doesn't actually change the name. Much like how we do not refer to the Honda RA107 as the "Earth Car" or Frankenstein's monster as Frankenstein, even though that's how many people know it.
5225C (talk • contributions) 10:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
That's a straw man argument. You haven't refuted anything. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I have refuted your claim that it is always presented to them as "Formula 1". Consider some of the examples I gave the RM above. Particular F1's TV graphics which use the word.
SSSB (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, how exactly is that a strawman? Formula 1 is an abbreviation of Formula One, which is the official name. Sure, many people refer to the United States of America as simply America, but that does not change its real name. You haven't mounted any convincing argument that Formula 1 takes precedence, given that it is pronounced identically to the official name. You try to claim this is an instance of WP:COMMONNAME, but you are neglecting the fact that Formula One is both the common name and official name, but it is often abbreviated.
5225C (talk • contributions) 23:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
"Formula 1 is an abbreviation of Formula One."
No, it's not. But even if it was, Wikipedia still allows article titles to incorporate abbreviations—case in point, the Cosworth DFV; the "DFV" is an abbreviation of "Double Four Valve". Furthermore, if the use of the number is so problematic, why haven't you objected to articles such as 2020 FIA Formula 2 Championship, 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship, 2020 ADAC Formula 4 Championship (among other Formula 4 articles) and 2020–21 Australian S5000 Championship? Why is the number so problematic in Formula 1 articles when numbers are used extensively in articles about open-wheel formula racing? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Are you seriously trying to tell me that the number 1 is not an abbreviation for the word One? Formula 1 and Formula One both refer to the exact same championship and any even slightly literate reader of the English Wikipedia could not possibly be confused by the two. As you yourself admit, there is no established preference by the sport itself and as has been proven by other editors, no preference amongst the media. On the other hand, this dispute between the inconsistent use of the two phrases can be very easily settled by referring to the official name of the championship according to the FIA, which is Formula One. However, with regards to F2 and F3, the official FIA name uses the numeral (so if you want to disregard official names as you previously mentioned, than we can have Formula Two and Three without difficulty). Not to mention I have no obligation to go and rename articles I am not involved in.
    As far as I can tell, your argument seems to consist of "The television broadcast uses F1, and the media does too, the average reader sees the number 1, therefore the article should be called Formula 1", which to me (and evidently many others) does not have much substance behind it. Regardless of which spelling is more commonly used, and regardless of the official name, I fail to see what you believe is causing difficulties for readers given nearly 5500 find their way here without issue every day. In my opinion, this RfC is bordering on absurdity.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 11:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • We have already established that there is no preferred version of the name from the sport's administrators. And your argument that the word should be used because it is the "official name" runs contrary to both WP:OFFICIAL and WP:COMMONNANE. What do you think a reader is going to recognise: the name that is presented to them when they watch a broadcast, or the name that is included on a document, the existence of which they may not even be aware of? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • We have already established that there is no preferred version of the name from the sport's administrators.
    I am finding it very difficult to assume good faith here. You accept there is no established preference from the sport's side. You just said it yourself. Other editors who oppose you have proven there is no established preference from the media. Therefore, followers of the sport are not consistently shown either name. If they are not given a consistent name, why would we use an unofficial name? If a mixture Formula 1 and Formula One is used, but only one is official, then why on earth would we not use the official one? Stop referring me to WP:COMMONNAME, because you just told me that there was no established preference. WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable here.
    Secondly, you evidently have not read WP:OFFICIAL, because right in the lead we have:
Wikipedia:Article titles is the relevant policy and reads in part:
Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. In many cases, the official name will be the best choice to fit these criteria. However, in many other cases, it will not be.
Formula One is just as recognizable as Formula 1, which is evident to any literate English speaker. You are yet to reason why the average Wikipedia user would be confused, which they are evidently not. As I have previously mentioned, nearly 5500 visit this article every day. WP:OFFICIAL goes on to reason that official names should not be used when the official title is obscure and/or inconsistent, which Formula One is neither of, since it pronounced and read the same way as Formula 1. And, of course, as you yourself has established, there is no consistent usage in other sources. Your use of policy is entirely inconsistent with what those policies actually state.
In brief, I honestly cannot see what your argument consists of other than you don't like it. What, exactly, is the source of confusion for readers, and if that is not your argument, what is? You keep saying sources are incosistent, but then you use WP:COMMONNAME, but those two statements are a dichotomy and cannot be true at the same time. There is no common name, but there is one official name, and it is pronounced and read the same way and has the same meaning as the abbreviated version you believe we should use.
5225C (talk • contributions) 06:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
"Formula One is just as recognizable as Formula 1"

Where do you think people recognise the name from? We are not talking about an abstract concept, but a physical thing that people can witness outside Wikipedia. And when they witness it, it quite clearly and consistently says "Formula 1". If you want to argue the issue of WP:OFFICIAL, take a look at race report articles—almost every single Grand Prix (I say "almost" because I haven't had the chance to check all of them) since 2013 uses "Formula 1" in its title; they previously used Roman numerals. The trend seems to have started around 2011 with a few exceptions, and may have started sooner. While there was no formal announcement (that I know of), there is a clear effort to re-present the sport as Formula 1. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Well that would make sense, wouldn't it, considering that the official name of many GPs is now Formula 1 (as you pointed out above). On the other hand, the championship itself and the company that organises it are presented as Formula One, which is what this article discusses. So, once again, what is the issue with the name? Do you think because the GPs are presented as Formula 1 users are confused when reading about the Formula One Championship?
    5225C (talk • contributions) 08:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No, the races form the championship. That difference is significant. it quite clearly and consistently says "Formula 1", no. A multitude of international sources above use One. Lets remember that most people don't follow Formula One. Now specialised sources such as formula1.com, formula 1's social media, autosport, speedcafe may all use the number, formula one may be trying to rebrand as a number but many sources still use the word, the official name of individual races use the number but again, many sources, from a multitude of coutries, still use the word and I am therefore unconvinced that the commoname uses the number.
    SSSB (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • They're really not though.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 09:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Formula One: It's all been discussed before, this RFC is just a re-run of last week's failed RM, same editors making the same points. This RfC is just forum shopping in the faint hope of achieving a different outcome. Previous RMs haven't come remotely close to being successful; in December 2018 it was 1 for, 9 against and in June 2020, 2 for, 8 against. This is just one editor's refusal to drop the stick and accept that consensus simply doesn't exist for the article to be renamed. Fecotank (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @Fecotank: "This RfC is just forum shopping in the faint hope of achieving a different outcome." You should assume good faith in future. I reject you accusation that I'm forum-shopping because as I pointed out, moving this article would require moving dozens of articles as a result. It would be inconsistent to have one article called "Formula 1" and another called "2020 Formula One World Championship". Given the consequences of a move, an RfC is the most appropriate format for a discussion. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • You both seem to have misunderstood my argument here. When the RM discussion was created, someone should have recognised that if a consensus to move was established, then it would have had wider implications—and that the scale of those implications was large enough than an RM was not the right venue for the discussion. That no consensus to move was formed is beside the point. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not disagreeing that an RM would be an inappropriate way to approach a move, but the fact no consensus exists for a move is entirely the point. No support developed for a move, so why have you reopened this discussion if not to try and find support?
    5225C (talk • contributions) 13:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • To expand on 5225C's point, the fact that the discussion was closed against such a move completely nullifies the need for an RfC (I.e. there is no need for an RfC on wider implications because there are none). I find it very hard to see a point of view contrary to that of Fecotank.
    SSSB (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I reject you accusation that I'm forum-shopping because as I pointed out, moving this article would require moving dozens of articles as a result.
Despite of your protestations, this is nothing but a re-run of the RM as others have also observed. There is probably a case for a procedural close of this disruptive behaviour, but won't bother reporting, as yet again there appears to be no support for change, so the process will take care of it.
It would be inconsistent to have one article called "Formula 1" and another called "2020 Formula One World Championship".
Except there is no inconsistency, you have never been able to convince the community of the merits of replacing Formula One with Formula 1, either on this or the 20xx Formula One World Championship articles.
When the RM discussion was created, someone should have recognised that if a consensus to move was established, then it would have had wider implications—and that the scale of those implications was large enough than an RM was not the right venue for the discussion. That no consensus to move was formed is beside the point.
But the consensus to move simply wasn't there, so the wider implications point is moot. Fecotank (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
"Despite of your protestations, this is nothing but a re-run of the RM as others have also observed."
That is your opinion, and nothing more. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
If that is so, why didn't the RM pass? Please stop beating this dead horse. There is plenty of useful work you could be doing with that energy. Britmax (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Because there was no time. An RM discussion is only open for a week, and this particular RM only started getting activity after three or four days. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Why would you misrepresent the RM with the comment "Because there was no time. An RM discussion is only open for a week, and this particular RM only started getting activity after three or four days."? The RM opened on 1 June, and there was activity that day and the next day. Not after "three or four days". Mark83 (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
That is your opinion, and nothing more.
It's actually the opinion of many, @Joseph2302, Chaheel Riens, Calidum, 5225C, and Britmax: have all noted that this is just a re-run of last week's RM.
Because there was no time. An RM discussion is only open for a week, and this particular RM only started getting activity after three or four days.
Rubbish, within 48 hours of being opened, 9 out of the 10 editors who expressed an opinion, had already done so. The only activity in the next few days was generated by Logo fixer, but his opinion was irrelevant as he was rubbed out. By the time you arrived it was 8:1. In the ensuing period there was lots of text, but none of it resulted in any further votes or anyone who had already cast changing their position. Whether the RM ran for a week, a month or a year, unlikely enough supporting votes were going to then be made to reign in the oppose votes.
As has been the case on this RfC despite the massive wall of text; 3 days in and no-one is buying in on the need for change. Fecotank (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion

A huge amount of the text above is ping-pong responses that have done nothing to alter anybody's opinions but have taken a huge amount of time and effort. And I'm as guilty as anyone. I cannot and would not tell anyone what to do - this is simply a plea for everyone to take a breath and consider their position:

  • Is a further reply/comment going to advance us towards a consensus/change somebody's mind/or is a point you feel you must make? That's great.
  • If not, then let's respect differing opinions and await further input. Still plenty of time to run on this RfC. Mark83 (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

A possible solution

I have come up with what I think is a viable solution for this problem. First of all, allow me to share a few key points:

  1. Since 2013 every single race has been run under the title "20XX Formula 1 [sponsor name] Nation Grand Prix" (or some variation thereof). I have checked every single article from 2013 Australian Grand Prix to the present and can confirm it. This naming convention was started in 2010, and was largely in place in 2011, but was not fully adopted until 2013. Prior to 2010, races used a naming convention based on Roman numerals such as "XCIV Grand Prix de France". Now, I cannot find any sources where a change in the naming convention is announced, but there is a clear change here.
  2. Articles use a range of publications as sources and I would call the most commonly-used ones "preferred sources". This is because they are used regularly, and are considered reliable and verifiable and make up the bulk of the sources used in articles. They include Autosport and motorsport.com (I'm counting them together because they are owned by the same publisher and post a lot of the same stories), Speedcafe and formula1.com. All of these sources use "Formula 1", as can clearly be seen in the following:

To answer SSSB's question about when they formally made the change from "Formula One" to "Formula 1", I cannot directly answer that without digging through seven years' worth of stories. The change seems to have coincided with the sport's change of its naming, but the use of "Formula One" may have continued beyond March 2013. Whatever the case, they do not use it anymore. There are some sources out there beyond the "preferred sources" which may use a different naming style, such as the aforementioned Clydebank Post. However, these sources are not regularly used in articles and so I find it to awkward that articles use a naming style based on a name that is not used by the majority of the sources presented in those articles.

Now, before I go into detail on my proposed solution I have to give a bit of context on a similar decision that the WikiProject made. In August 2017, a consensus was formed (warning—it's a lengthy discussion) to change the naming style of championship articles from "19XX/20XX Formula One season" to "19XX/20XX Formula One World Championship". However, the name change was only applied from 1980 when the name was adopted. The discussion focused on the word "season", which was taken to mean "all Formula One racing in a calendar year" and included races run to Formula One regulations outside the main championship. From 1980, there was no more racing outside the World Championship and so the name "World Championship" was found to be the most specific and the most appropriate.

So, here is the proposal: there has been a clear change in the way that the sport has been presented in the past decade. I am going to use 2013 as a starting point because that is the first time every race in the championship was a "Formula 1 Grand Prix". Just as we used 1979 as a cut-off point in the August 2017 discussion, we use 2012 as a cut-off point here. Every single article that addresses the sport from 2013 to the present should use the name "Formula 1". Everything prior to 2013 uses the name "Formula One". Now, there are some articles that deal with subjects that pre-date 2013, but are still in use today. Sebastian Vettel is an example of this. In these cases, these articles would continue to use the name "Formula One" for the sake of their internal consistency. So where Vettel's article would use "Formula One", Charles Leclerc would use "Formula 1". Here is a list (not complete) of articles and which naming style they would use:

Article type "Formula One" "Formula 1"
Drivers Sebastian Vettel
Daniel Ricciardo
Romain Grosjean
Kimi Raikkonen
Lewis Hamilton 		Charles Leclerc
Daniil Kvyat
Carlos Sainz Jr.
Max Verstappen
Antonio Giovinazzi
Teams Scuderia Ferrari
Red Bull Racing
Williams F1 		Racing Point
Haas F1 Team
Scuderia AlphaTauri
Grands Prix Singapore
Belgium
Japan 		Azerbaijan
Vietnam
Styria

And so on and so forth. I feel that this is a good balance to have because the sport has used the name "Formula 1" for at least seven years and one hundred and forty races, but continuing the use of the original name when it is needed. To my mind, continuing to refer to "Formula One" in articles where "Formula 1" is clearly the preferred name used in the sources provided is the same as referring to 2020 Formula One World Championship as "2020 Formula One season". Technically it is correct, but "World Championship" is more specific, more natural and more easily-recognised. The same goes for the use of "Formula 1" for post-2013 articles. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Oops. Forgot to ping SSSB despite mentionimg him by name. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I find this to be an agreeable solution, with one caveat: references to the championship and organising corporation should still use Formula One. It is the official name and is referred to as such. Every other reference could be changed. For example, to take the McLaren MCL35 page, the lead would read "The McLaren MCL35 is a Formula 1 car constructed by McLaren to compete in the 2020 and 2021 Formula One World Championships."
    Although I disagree that the use of 1 is universal or becoming universal, you mount a solid argument that the term used in reference to the sport itself is changing. This compromise would implement (as you say) the name that the sport is presented as while also maintaining the full name of the championship and organising group.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 09:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)     After reading comments from other users, I'm again going to oppose this change, largely for reasons already stated.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 07:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @5225C: I think championship articles from 2013 should use the number. The championship is made up of races, all of which use the number in their names. The teams all use the number in their names (Mercedes even use it in their car name). The number is used on documents such as the entry lists, in the race broadcasts, in media produced and licenced by the sport and in news reporting on the races, the championship and events (eg driver moves). Most importantly, the sources used in these Wikipedia articles use the number. Like I said, I think it's wrong that the majority of sources used in these articles present it as "Formula 1", but article itself uses "Formula One". COMMONNAME states that the name should be recognisable and when you turn on the race, you're constantly presented with "Formula 1". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Mclarenfan17: And I'm not disagreeing with you, but references to the championship are generally F1 (clearly an abbreviation) or Formula One. Especially when the name is used in full – if you Google "FIA Formula One World Championship -Wikipedia" you'll see over the first two pages of results, 1 is only used 3 times out of 19 results, and only appears on the second page. Out of the first ten results on Google News using the same search, 1 was used only twice. The same argument you use for the races, which I agree with, applies to the championship.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 09:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
references to the championship are generally F1 (clearly an abbreviation)
Yes, an abbreviation of "Formula 1".
if you Google "FIA Formula One World Championship -Wikipedia" you'll see over the first two pages of results, 1 is only used 3 times out of 19 results, and only appears on the second page
That's because you're specifically searching for Wikipedia articles. If you look at this (it's the Singapore 2019 entry list), it clearly says "FIA Formula 1 World Championship" at the top of the page. Everything that makes it recogniseable to the audience uses the number.
That's because you're specifically searching for Wikipedia articles. Note the - in front of Wikipedia, it removes Wikipedia results from the search. Please try again, you will observe that Formula One World Championship is more common.
5225C (talk • contributions) 09:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
And if you re-read the post that I made above, you will see that I am only suggesting renaming articles from 2013 to the present. The search result you are using does not account for that. Search results are not the only thing that we should use to determine what the COMMONNAME is, either. You also haven't addressed the fact that the majority of sources used in those articles use the name "Formula 1". And it would be a bit strange if every article from 2013 used the "Formula 1" name except championship articles. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I am aware you only proposed renaming articles after 2013, that's not what I'm disputing. What I'm trying to show you is that the championship is still officially and generally called the FIA Formula One world Championship, not the FIA Formula 1 World Championship. The search results I'm referring to are just are quick way to prove that. And, as I said in my initial reply, One would only be used in reference to the championship and organising company, because that is how they arereferred to. The sport would be referred to using 1, because that is how the sport is referred to (in general).
5225C (talk • contributions) 10:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

And I disagree with that because official names are not automatically the best names for articles and because I think the sport is more recogniseable as "Formula 1". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Let me clarify that I am agreeing with you. I accept your compromise, with the condition that the championship and corporation be referred to as Formula One. Like I have tried to show you, the championship is an exception to your argument. I agree that a lot of sources are using F1 and I understand your point about race names and the broadcast, so I understand this. But the championship is distinct from the sport, and this is reflected in most sources. Sources refer to "Formula 1 races" but then the "Formula One Championship" and the "Formula One Group". Do you see what I'm getting at here?
    5225C (talk • contributions) 10:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
the championship is distinct from the sport
How does that work? The two are synonymous. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Quite easily, much the same way association football and Premier League are different. The sport is the actual act itself held to a certain standard, the championship is an assembly of races which are used to run a multi-race competition. As you mentioned above, prior to 1980 Formula One races were held that were not part of the championship. How can that occur if they are synonymous?
    5225C (talk • contributions) 11:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • That's a quibble. An impressive quibble to be sure, but still a quibble. And it still doesn't address the fact that most of the sources in those articles use "Formula 1". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, but like I said, that's in reference to the sport, not the championship. If you want me to do a set of 20 examples or something I'm pretty confident it would be just as common for sources to say "Formula One World Championship" as it is for them to say "Formula 1 race" (based on that Google search above).
    5225C (talk • contributions) 11:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Is your reference again to the Clydebank Post serious or are you being sarcastic? To be clear I'm hoping it's the latter. Because if you're hanging an argument on that after I have addressed that concern multiple times including with references you have ignored such as BBC, Reuters, ESPN, Sky News, ABC News, Washington Post, New York Times, eurosport then you are being disingenuous in the extreme. On the overall point, thank you for the time you've spent on it. I can see the logic behind this proposed solution, but as I've said all along I don't feel the situation is as clear cut as you are making portraying it. Yes, F1 is how the Formula One Group wants it to be branded (my very first point on this). And yes, if/when this branding becomes the overwhelmingly used term I'd support the change. But it is not the overwhelmingly used term. It could also be argued that this different naming protocol (although to stress again I see the logic) without an explanation could confuse readers. Although to be fair it would take a particularly astute reader to notice. Mark83 (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Is your reference again to the Clydebank Post serious or are you being sarcastic?
If you had read my argument, you'd know. What I am trying to point out is that there is, in all likelihood, a small selection of sources that use "Formula One", but given their size, obscurity and niche appeal, it is wrong to argue that they are somehow representative of the wider media. If all of the sources that we use in articles say "Formula 1", we cannot use the name "Formula One" based on the hypothetical existence of a small selection of sources. I thought I made the point pretty clear, so it is evident that you didn't read it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I had read it. And had a problem with the fact that you are still ignoring the fact that I have presented many alternative sources who use Formula One. I tell you what, I'll change all the references to sources that use Formula One and we'll all be happy? (Considering that now seems to be a key part of your argument).Mark83 (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"I tell you what, I'll change all the references to sources that use Formula One and we'll all be happy?"
If you wish to do so, then be my guest. Don't expect me to help, though.
"(Considering that now seems to be a key part of your argument)"
Articles must reflect what sources say. The sources provided—from 2013 at least—say "Formula 1". Therefore those articles should say "Formula 1". Otherwise you're basing the content of articles on sources that cannot be verified. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mclarenfan17: I'm still not convinced. YOu keep listing specialised sources to back you up. (i.e. sources which exclusivly report on motorsport or f1) but you are forgetting the linglist of more general sources listed by Mark83. These are the places where most people are going to read about F1 and they use the word. As I said before most people don't watch the races, nor do they visit autosport, speedcafe or formula1.com, they read about F1 on news websites which cover a large range of topics. I am still not convinced that the number os the common name for post-2013 articles.
SSSB (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
"YOu keep listing specialised sources to back you up. (i.e. sources which exclusivly report on motorsport or f1) but you are forgetting the linglist of more general sources listed by Mark83."
You are the one who asked me to demonstrate the use of the name in those sources. If those mainstream sources alternate between the number and the word, we have to consider other sources. And what you're suggesting sounds dangerously like disregarding some of the most reliable and widely-used sources that we have. If those mainstream sources are so pivotal, why aren't they used more often in articles?
I'm also willing to bet that, given the size of Wikipedia, people searching for the sport will learn about it from Wikipedia or formula1.com rather than a mainstream news outlet. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I asked you to demonstarte a change in recent months. what you're suggesting sounds dangerously like disregarding some of the most reliable and widely-used sources that we have. - Not at all. The sources the article cites don't impact the name. As Mark83 said above we can easily change most sources for ones which use the word. The reason those articles aren't used more in articles is because we (as f1 fans) use f1 (or motorsport) specific news outlets which just happen to use the number.
And what I am saying is that someone reads an article somewhere in the Brisbane times (for example) without searching for f1 and they want to find out more about f1 they are going to use the name the see (in this case with the word). And I don't see any evidence that the number is used by more sources than the word.
SSSB (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"And I don't see any evidence that the number is used by more sources than the word."
And I don't see any evidenxe that the word is used by more sources than the number. If the best you've got is a handful of publications like The Brisbane Times that a) don't have extensive coverage of the sport, b) aren't used as regular sources and c) are up against a wide range of sources, then you don't have much of a case. Right now your argument amounts to "ignore what the hundreds of articles from dedicated publications say because there is a chance a reader might encounter a different term in another publication". You can't just ignore the likes of Autosport, Speedcafe and formula1.com because they're inconvenient. If they really are as problematic as you make them out to be, then we need to go and remove them from every single article that uses them. Because you can't have it both ways. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
And I don't see any evidenxe that the word is used by more sources than the number. - because no body has argued this, it would seem that as many sources use the word as the number (give or take). a) don't have extensive coverage of the sport - irrelevant. b) aren't used as regular sources - irrelevant. c) are up against a wide range of sources - you haven't given a wide range sources and there are a wide range of sources of both sides. Because you can't have it both ways. - I'm not trying to, I am not the one complaining because the language in the sources cited doesn't perfectly match the article's title
Again, I see no evidence that one term is used more than the another, and I therefore see reason why this article should be moved if there doesn't appear to be a clear common name.
SSSB (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Can I just point out that at this point I've given more sources for Formula One than you have for Formula 1. Listing 41 individual pages from 2 sources, is still 2 sources (I know you've also mentioned formula1.com but noone is arguing what FOM want). "because no body has argued this, it would seem that as many sources use the word as the number (give or take)" - so why on earth are we having this conversation?Mark83 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"I see no evidence that one term is used more than the another, and I therefore see reason why this article should be moved if there doesn't appear to be a clear common name."

Do you not see the problem here? There is no clear preference for the word or the number, and yet something has to be used as the name. You say "there is no clear preference for the use of the word or the number" and use it as an argument against the number. But surely it can be used as an argument in equal measure against the word.

"I know you've also mentioned formula1.com but noone is arguing what FOM want"

No, you're just arguing that we should disregard what FOM want as if they don't have a stake in this. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a quibble. An impressive quibble to be sure, but still a quibble.
This whole discussion that just goes around in circles is a quibble.
...why on earth are we having this conversation?
Because one editor has a fixation that articles need to be renamed, and is now making a last-ditech attempt to salvage something from a lost cause. The selective renaming of articles idea would be worse than the F1 across the board option.
Do you not see the problem here? There is no clear preference for the word or the number, and yet something has to be used as the name.
There is no problem, the Formula One title has served this and the 20xx season articles perfectly for many years. The onus on making the case rests with those agitating for change, not those who are content with the status quo. For every source that uses Formula One, there is one that uses Formula 1...there is no clear-cut winner. Does anybody seriously think readers are not able to ascertain that 'One' and '1' are one and the same, particularly when redirects are in place? Both terminologies are used interchangeably. Anybody can pick and choose which sources to prioritise or ignore, or manipulate google and the like searches, to come to the result desired. Fecotank (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
"The selective renaming of articles idea would be worse than the F1 across the board option."
Do you have a reason for feeling this way, or are you just opposing everything by default? I suspect the latter, given that a) you haven't expressed any opposition to the move from "season" to "World Championship" and b) you're wilfully ignoring multiple sources because they're inconvenient. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Have you no self awareness at all? "wilfully ignoring multiple sources because they're inconvenient" is exactly what you are doing. You've now accepted that no clear preference for F1 or Formula One exists, but we have to go through a massive change just because that's your (minority) opinion? The circular-firing-squad-nature of this conversation has crystallised perfectly so I'm going to end my involvement in this repetitive, exhausting discussion with my initial vote on it. "I don't doubt that the Formula One Group prefers the use of "Formula 1" or "F1" as a brand (ironic given its name, and the fact that the commercial rights are vested in Formula One Licensing B.V.), but still a firm oppose from me because this article isn't about the sport as a brand, it's about the sport in its entirety. And since the sport IS the "FIA Formula One World Championship", that makes the title of the article perfectly correct (and sensible) to me. And even if it wasn't and it just came down to common usage, it would still be a coin toss. If you will allow me to use another example in contrast - the article about the British Broadcasting Corporation will always be called BBC because in common usage the latter is overwhelmingly used. Such a strong bias toward one term or the other does not exist here. Mark83 (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)" Mark83 (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
"You've now accepted that no clear preference for F1 or Formula One exists, but we have to go through a massive change just because that's your (minority) opinion?"

I'm pointing out that no clear preference exists for the number, but also that no clear preference exists for the word. You're quite happy to end the conversation after the first half that sentence. Answer me this: if there is no clear preference for the number or the word, what makes the word the best name for the article? The argument that you are using against the number can also be used against the word. You're getting frustrated that this argument is going blow-for-blow, but did you consider that this is because the argument you have been relying on undercuts your point? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

(not indented due to the extreme clutter above) - having read... most... of the above discussion I will say that I support McLarenfan's proposal to split useage from some point 2010-2013, including moving the more general articles (including this one), but I do worry that people will continuously edit war over bypassing any Formula One redirects which appear. It's quite clear that as a general rule single digit numbers have become more accepted stylistically, contributing to a much more frequent usage in reliable sources. But even with older sources, eg Gregor Grant Formula 2 (1953) and CAN May Formula 3 (1951), it was common to use numbers for Formula 1, 2 and 3 (not just in the headings...). Sometimes I've even seen Roman numerals. Also I don't mean to appear rude but those claiming that Formula 1 is an abbreviation, and that this is a reason not to change the name, they probably need to have a look at, for example Rhode Island and the thousands of other articles on Wikipedia who's title is an abbreviation of some kind. A7V2 (talk) 07:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@A7V2:
"I do worry that people will continuously edit war over bypassing any Formula One redirects which appear."
That was a concern when we moved from "season" to "World Championship" back in 2017. From memory, we made sure that we had as many participants in the discussion as possible and then bookmarked that discussion to refer anyone reverting it. It also helped that we moved thirty or so articles at once, and it was expected that with a bit of time, the number of reverts would decline. In fact, I don't think we ever had a single revert.
If we were to make changes, it would be with a clear understanding of the plan: that any article "created" from 2013 onwards would be changed and that anything pre-dating 2013 would be left alone. I still have two concerns, though:
  1. The subject of the affected articles are a physical thing which is owned and run by someone outside Wikipedia. This is opposed to a concept. As such, I think that some weight has to be given to Liberty/FOM. It's a bit like saying "no, the Styrian Grand Prix should be called the second Austrian Grand Prix".
  2. The range of sources presented within articles clearly use a style of naming. While WP:COMMONNAME says we should use the name that is reflected in most sources, the idea that we should use a name which is not in the sources presented undercuts that. It's the "silent majority" argument: that the majority of people agree with you, but haven't spoken up.
I think it's important that people engage with the sport outside Wikipedia and so article titles should reflect how the sport is presented. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
The people who did speak up voted 8:2 against you a fortnight or so ago. Please drop the stick and do something useful instead, there is plenty round here. The tactic of arguing for so long that everyone else just gets fed up with you is one I learned to spot in infant school. Britmax (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I genuinely believe that these changes are in the best interest of these articles and that I can persude people of the merits of them. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think they are, I don't think you will and I think there are better uses of our (and "our" includes "your" here) time and energy. Britmax (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@A7V2: You mention those claiming that Formula 1 is an abbreviation, but as far as I know I am the only one who has done that. Formula 1 objectively is an abbreviation of Formula One. The difference between that and a case like Rhode Island is that Formula 1 and Formula One sound identical when read or pronounced, whereas Rhode Island sounds very different to the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
5225C (talk • contributions) 13:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I am simply going to post everything I have to say here because I can't be bothered to go through and search for everything individually, I am starting to lose my patience. There is no clear preference for the word or the number...use it as an argument against the number. - no, we use it as an argument against changing the status quo of using the word. you're just arguing that we should disregard what FOM want as if they don't have a stake in this. - they don't have a stake in Wikipedia. We use the common name and if there is no common name then why disrupt the status quo? what the FOM want is irrelvant. if there is no clear preference for the number or the word, what makes the word the best name for the article? - hte fact that this is where the pages currently are. Why move hundreds (if not thousands) of pages if there is no clear common name. Just to appease the minority who think it should be there?
SSSB (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Now to respond to Mclarenfan17's proposal:
Strong oppose - The holes in the arguemnt are gaping:
  1. As Mclarenfan17 keeps pointing out we should use the commonname. We have all seen a range of sources and Mclarenfan17 has now himself admitted that the word and number have equal precedence in sources, then it follows logically that no common name exists. It therefore makes sense (to me at least) that the articles maintain the status quo for the simply reason of simplicity. Why move hundreds of pages and change text for no reason but to appease those who have a personal preference for the number while ignoring those who have a personal preference of the word?
  2. How F1 want to market thier races is irrelevant and should not influence article title espically given that F1 don't have a clear prefence them selves, half of thier official documents still use the word, the other the number.
  3. Your 2013 cut off is based on original research. There is no clear evidence supporting this date.
  4. If we use 2019 Formula 1 World Championship then it follows logicially that we should use 2010 Formula 1 World Championship and 1950 Formula 1 season (or vice versa). It is not the same as the change from 19XX Formula One season to 19XX Formula One World Championship was a scope issue and a common name issue. There is no evidence (that I have seen) that the common name for 2012 uses the word but the common name for 2013 uses the number. The same is true of any two seasons.

All in all I would prefer that all articles get changed to the number than this arbitary cut off when we change from word to number, if I think the propsal is actually just plain confusing. The one thing I would say as part of a comprimise is that no matter which way this discussion goes I think that this discussion has proved that 1 and one is used interchangable in the media. I therefore see no reason why article prose cannot switch between the number and the word.
SSSB (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

"Mclarenfan17 has now himself admitted that the word and number have equal precedence in sources"
That's a misrepresentation. It's only true if you assume that only news articles can be used as sources. If you look at this list of citation templates, there is a whole range of potential source types available. Perhaps most notable is the television episode template—Grands Prix are not simply broadcast live, but recorded and can be shown at a later date (they usually get shown during the winter break and have gotten a lot of airtime during the pandemic; the Formula 1 YouTube channel has even been uploading old races). There's also the end-of-year reviews that are regularly published. The television episode template would also allow us to use the pre- and post-race shows produced by broadcasters. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@5225C: My apologies if that's the case. The gargantuan thread above is quite difficult to follow so when I read through it I was paying more attention to the arguments and rebuttals than who said them (I don't have all day!). I disagree that numerals represent an "abbreviation" but even if they do, that's not really relevant. And to say they sound identical when read or pronounced, well I don't know about you but I personally don't so much "read aloud" in my head unless I'm reading a quote or fiction, but even with how it is pronounced that's not quite right since a nonenglish speaker will pronounce "1" as whatever the word is in their language, whereas "one" is just one. On the same subject it's also interesting that the vast majority of other Wikipedias use "1" instead of the native word for "one", see [70].
@Mclarenfan17: I don't think it's going to happen anyway so probably my concerns about editwarring aren't going to matter.
@Britmax: It's not clear from the indentation if your comment was directed at me but if you think it is inappropriate for someone new to comment on a two day old proposal in a still open request for comment I really don't know what to tell you.
@SSSB: If it is original research to use some arbitrary cutoff for when the name should change, then wouldn't that make it original research to use "one" instead of "1" (or visversa) in contradiction to the sources in an article? Because that happens quite a bit. And also "Formula 1" and even "F1" seems quite common in "tangential" articles, eg Zeltweg Air Base which actually uses both. A7V2 (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@A7V2: I didn't take your comment personally, I was just saying I could address your point directly. According to Wikipedia's own article on abbreviations, an abbreviation "is a shortened form of a word or phrase, by any method. It may consist of a group of letters, or words taken from the full version of the word or phrase". Hence I find it difficult to reason that 1 is not an abbreviation of 1. They have the same meaning, and, considering this is the English Wikipedia, are pronounced identically in English. I agree that is an interesting observation of other Wikipedias' naming systems, but that could also be a result of the structure of the language itself and how the sport is conveyed in those languages.
5225C (talk • contributions) 00:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@5225C: If we take that definition literally, then one could argue that since color is just colour but shortened, then color is an abbreviation which is pronounced the same way and so the article should be at colour not color. Or of course one could argue that article titles should be Two thousand and twenty Formula One World Championship etc. I'm not going to be drawn into an argument about linguistics (and the origins of spellings, numerals etc etc) as I still don't see what difference it makes if Formula 1 is an abbreviation or not. Is there a policy which says we can't use abbreviations in article titles? A7V2 (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@A7V2: the most applicable policies are WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIAL. The sticking point is how much weight we give to dedicated media (eg Autosport), mainsteam media (eg the BBC) and content produced by the sport itself. The dedicated media tend to use "Formula 1", the mainstream media have no clear preferencs, and content produced by the sport appears to use "Formula 1". Official documentation has no clear preference, but might be slightly in favour of "Formula One". As it is, the only website that consistently favours "Formula One" is Wikipedia.
The question is if people engage with the sport outside Wikipedia, then what are they most likely to recognise? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Do you have a reason for feeling this way, or are you just opposing everything by default? I suspect the latter
I have read the arguments and come to a conclusion, that's all. Your mind reading radar is way off.
...you haven't expressed any opposition to the move from "season" to "World Championship"
I didn't realise this was even up for discussion, but given how convoluted this RfC has become, not surprised if there is sub-plot of which I am not aware.
...you're wilfully ignoring multiple sources because they're inconvenient
Pot calling the kettle black, that is what you have done referring to the sources that support your case and brushing over those that don't. Maintain a different stance, I have no problem with that, but please don't be hypocritical in the process. Fecotank (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
"that is what you have done referring to the sources that support your case and brushing over those that don't."
I'll be happy to address those sources once I get a straight answer on the points that I have raised. For example, why should we give more weight to mainstream sources than specialist sources when the majority of sources included in the articles come from specialist sources? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mclarenfan17: I'm starting to think I would have supported the renaming in its entirety after all, I probably should have said something earlier! I've just had a quick look through my books, and it looks like most of the big-name authors go with Formula 1 (not "one"), ie Gregor Grant, David Hodges, Cyril Posthumus, Doug Nye, Alan Henry, Stirling Moss, Mike Lang (of Grand Prix! fame) with "One" only being used in the most generic of books, as well as by Bruce Jones (who has been editor of Autosport) and Nigel Roebuck, and then of course William Court out on his own using Roman Numerals. But then a lot of the older books tend to prefer terms like "2 1/2 litre formula", "1 1/2 litre formula" etc. to distinguish between the quite different formulas that Grand Prix racing has taken. A7V2 (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@A7V2: that has been the main focus of my argument, but they are all part of the specialist media—media that is focused on the subject. The counter-argument is a) that mainstream media such as the BBC and CNN and the like either use "One" or have no clear preference and b) that most readers would be familiar with the sport (or at least first learn of it) through these sources. WP:CRITERIA says that good titles have five characteristics: they are recogniseable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. When someone sits down to watch a race, they are greeted by graphics that clearly say "Formula 1". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

wouldn't that make it original research to use "one" instead of "1" (or visversa) in contradiction to the sources in an article? - no, because a quick google search would show that you could use the word or the number (and as I said above I have no problem if article prose changes between the two). The orifganl research is the idea that FOM moved to a prefernece of 1 in 2013.
The question is if people engage with the sport outside Wikipedia, then what are they most likely to recognise? - the evidence so far suggests that they are as likly to regonsie the word as the number. And I seriously doubt that someone expecting to see the number would fail to reconise the subejct if the title is at the word. Whichever we choose reconisability isn't an issue, they are pronounced and read in the same way.
why should we give more weight to mainstream sources than specialist sources when the majority of sources included in the articles come from specialist sources? - In theory the sources with most viewership should be given more weight. However we, or at least I, am giving equal weight to mainstream and specilist sources. The term used in the sources we cite is irrelevant, there is no policy supporting this. As has been pointed out several times we could easily swap every source for one which uses the word. Several cited sources simply use F1, most use a combination of the three and fail to be consistent on the matter. You appear to be the only one giving more weight to specific source. The hypocrisy in the previous quote is so high I am almost convinced you are tring to wind us up on purpose.
When someone sits down to watch a race, they are greeted by graphics that clearly say "Formula 1". - most people don't watch F1, commonname cannot be estabilished based on this.
good titles have five characteristics: they are recogniseable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. - which the current title currently has. Formula One and Formula 1 are pronounced identically and are used near equally. The current name is therefore equally reconisable to the proposed name, by the same logic they are both are equally natrual, precise, consise and consistent.
Why disrupt the status quo of article titles only to appease a minority?
SSSB (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Page break

(I'm editing from a mobile device, and cannot paste text in because the sections above have hit the maximum number of characters, so I need a page break to keep doing this.)

"In theory the sources with most viewership should be given more weight."

Such as the Grands Prix?

"The orifganl research is the idea that FOM moved to a prefernece of 1 in 2013."

Prior to 2013, races were never officially known as "Formula One Grands Prix". For example, the 1997 Japanese Grand Prix was the "XXIII Fuji Television Japanese Grand Prix".

"most people don't watch F1"

Then how are they winding up in Formula 1 articles? They have to at least know of the sport to search for it, unless they're all using Special:Random to get there.

"Whichever we choose reconisability isn't an issue, they are pronounced and read in the same way."

Except that broadcasts use "Formula 1". Even if a user randomly winds up in a Formula 1 article and thinks "hey, that sounds pretty good; I might watch a race"—i.e. they learn of the sport here before seeing it on television—they're going to see it as "Formula 1". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

In theory is the key word. You can't difinitivly prove how much viewership certain things recieve therefore equally wieght is the best way forward, you certainly can't prove that sources which you use the word are seen more or less regualrly than source which use the number. As far as I can tell the sources using the word and the number are spread 50-50, some if not most switch between the two. never officially known as "Formula One Grands Prix" - official names have very little to do with anything. How many people actually pay attention to what the official name is? Then how are they winding up in Formula 1 articles? They have to at least know of the sport to search for it - Most people will know of the sport by reading about it in mainstram media. They go to the New York Times, or watch ABC news and see a news piece about F1 and think "whats that, let me look it up". This notion of yours that people can only find out about F1 by watching a race is ludicrous. if a user randomly winds up in a Formula 1 article...They're going to see it as "Formula 1" - says who? As I said before the number of news articles using the word and the number are spead roughy equally.
SSSB (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Most people will know of the sport by reading about it in mainstram media. They go to the New York Times, or watch ABC news and see a news piece about F1 and think "whats that, let me look it up".
Do you have any proof of this? Because there was an advertising campaign for the Australian Grand Prix that was broadcast over all the major channels down here. I assume the same thing is done in other countries. It stands to reason that just as many people learn about the sport from advertising as they do from news media.
As far as I can tell the sources using the word and the number are spread 50-50, some if not most switch between the two.
You still don't see the problem here, do you? If it's 50-50, what makes the word better than the number? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The fact that the status quo requires a lot less work than changing for virtually no benefit. Britmax (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Not only what Britmax has said, but also that it's the official name.
5225C (talk • contributions) 08:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
"the status quo requires a lot less work than changing for virtually no benefit"
I would say that accuracy in the name is very important.
"it's the official name"
Except that it's not because I can point to over 150 Grands Prix since 2010 where the official name has been "Formula 1". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Because there was an advertising campaign for the Australian Grand Prix that was broadcast over all the major channels down here. I assume the same thing is done in other countries. - I have never seen an official F1 ad in the UK. Self promotion ads. (i.e. the race broadcaster having ads on its own channel) and Sky like to promote thier F1 channel (but only do so on Channel 4 who have free-to-air coverage) but that is it.
SSSB (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed closure

Folks, different iterations of the same argument! Over and over and over when we have already arrived at a consensus (note I did not say agreement). And has anyone read Wikipedia:Requests for comment#What not to use the RfC process for? For these reasons I propose we discuss ending this RfC.Mark83 (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I concur.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 11:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed Joseph2302 (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed, this discussion is going round in circles.
    SSSB (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed, one editor seems not to realise that their repeated argument that the two are about 50/50 is an argument for doing nothing. Britmax (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    • "one editor seems not to realise that their repeated argument that the two are about 50/50 is an argument for doing nothing"
    • And a whole host of editors seem to be unable or unwilling to answer the question of why the word is better than the number when it's 50-50 except to say "it's the name sometimes used in mainstream media sources (which don't appear as sources in articles anyway)", which willfully ignores dozens of sources. And then you wonder why I keep asking the same question. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
      Have you not been reading replies. The reason the word is better when sources read 50-50 is that we currently use the word. Why move hundreds of pages for a 50-50 split?
      SSSB (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree, the discussion has run its course. If anyone still holds the belief that there is a realistic chance of consensus for the proposed change being reached, they can initiate a fresh move request meaning it will be resolved within a defined period rather than dragging on aimlessly. Fecotank (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Formula One. For the lengthy arguements already posted and because F1 appears to be more common than Formula 1. Undermining my own arguement there is a consistency issue with Formula 2, Formula 3 and Formula 4 which appears to be the correctly current usage. --Falcadore (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment: @Falcadore: I have proposed moving some of the more recent articles to reflect the current usage. And by "current", I can demonstrate that it has been used almost exclusively since 2010. Perhaps FIA Global Pathway could be used as a starting point, since it was a conscious effort by the FIA to consolidate feeder series into a single track. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
      You can prove that the FIA use it almost exclusivly, but every source that has been cited in this discussion as using the word comes from the last couple of years. We are not the FIA, we don't follow the FIA.
      SSSB (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Similar to the discussion above, there is a very clear consensus on closure. Are we therefore happy to close? As the dissenting voice in this proposed closure vote notifying @Mclarenfan17: specifically. If you are happy I'll do the formatting for closure. If not I will post a Request for Closure for an uninvolved editor to review and close; however just a reminder of the guidance before we ask someone to do a huge amount of reading on a discussion that has a consensus "Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance." I have the utmost respect for everyone's intentions and opinions, but I feel it would be both unproductive and unfair to ask someone to read this huge discussion when the outcome is clear. Mark83 (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mark83: I'm opposed, because I do think there are a few outstanding issues that need to be addressed. First, there is this comment from SSSB:

"We are not the FIA, we don't follow the FIA."

If he is suggesting what I think he is suggesting, then that's a pretty major departure from the way WP:F1 has been doing things. We have always treated the FIA as having some degree of authority on these subjects—for example, when a calendar is published, we wait until it is ratified by the FIA before including it in an article. SSSB's comment suggests that we can disregard the FIA, which has implications for the wider WikiProject.

Secondly, it might be worth a trip to WP:RSN to seek some clarification on the subject of mainstream and specialist sources, especially since large portions of the debate have hinged on where audiences are likely to become familiar with the sport. Take the ABC website: it's mainstream media and has the potential to reach more people than a specialist publication like Autosport, but it has limited coverage; as it's Australian, it tends to focus on Australian drivers and the Australian Grand Prix, but otherwise it will only cover significant events like the death of Jules Bianchi. Autosport might have a more narrow appeal, but has far more comprehensive coverage of the sport. If we have all of these caveats for ascribing weight to individual publication outside WP:RS and WP:VER, then I think it's ripe for exploitation from someone pushing an agenda. Clarification would help, especially since those in favour of the word "one" are drawing on sources that aren't included in articles to support their position. It's a silent majority argument. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am going to ask an uninvolved editor to review. This pains me for the reason stated above - it's both unproductive and unfair to ask someone to read this huge discussion when the outcome is clear. However because I have a direct involvement in this I don't want to appear to be rolling over you when you are not in agreement. Just as an aside, to take your 2 points:
  1. I agree that the FIA has some degree of authority on this subject. The same FIA that calls it the 2020 FIA Formula One World Championship. This is a repeat of discussions above.
  2. The sources presented to you to prove that "Formula One" is used as much as "Formula 1" are reliable per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You admit it's a 50/50 debate, but assert that we still need to change due to your arguments. But your argument has not gained anything like a majority of support. Therefore maintaining the status quo is the outcome. Mark83 (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mark83:
"You admit it's a 50/50 debate, but assert that we still need to change due to your arguments."
And you admit that it's a 50-50 debate, but assert that no change is necessary due to your arguments. I also only acknowledge that it's 50-50 in mainstream media; the number is far more prevalent in specialist media. If mainstream and specialist media are to be trested equally, the specialiat tips the balance in favour of the number. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that the FIA no longer have a degree of authority on these subjects, but their "authority" over us is limited and does not extend to the language or word choice/stylisiation used on Wikipedia. mainstream media and has the potential to reach more people than a specialist publication like Autosport, but it has limited coverage...Autosport might have a more narrow appeal, but has far more comprehensive coverage of the sport. - the idea of giving more weight to sources with wider coverage vs. those with a wider audience is very much 6 of one, half a dozen of the other, isn't it? Therefore equal weight.
But it is only natrual that we use specilised sources because ABC (the American or Australian version), NOS or ITV news simply aren't going to report that Imola are lobbing for a place on the calendar, or the debate about how many races you need to crown a championship (two autosport articles published today). However there is no policy which says the article title must follow the cited sources (otherwise we are gravely limiting the sources we can use across the entire encylopedia.
SSSB (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
"there is no policy which says the article title must follow the cited sources"
But there is a policy which says that article titles should reflect what the majority of sources say, and that's not limited to mainstream media. Specialist media, FIA documents, media produced by the sport; they're all valid sources. When I questioned the wisdom of relying too heavily on formula1.com, you yourself pointed out that it was a perfectly acceptable source. Now it feels like you're trying to exclude it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

For full transparency, the link to my Request for closure: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Formula One#Request for Comment on article title. Mark83 (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

And you admit that it's a 50-50 debate, but assert that no change is necessary due to your arguments. Correction - we both agree it's a 50-50 debate, and if it was just the 2 of us having a debate we would be nowhere near a conclusion. But we all agree it's a 50-50 debate and only 2 editors have made the argument for Formula 1 over Formula One. Therefore a consensus has been reached and it's the time to close. We're not breaking new ground, we're going over and over the same points. As we have been for weeks. Mark83 (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#What not to use the RfC process for says that RfC is not for changing names anyway, so this should definitely be closed as an incorrect process- we used the correct process before, and this was just an attempt to circumnavigate that RM. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Formula_One/Archive_7&oldid=983568501"