Talk:Max Verstappen/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2022

Max Verstappen has just won the 2022 Laureus Sportman of the Year 2022. Can someone add this to his page and awards section? Pyrone89 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

How about checking the news?

https://www.laureus.com/world-sports-awards

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.breaking-verstappen-scoops-laureus-world-sportsman-of-the-year-award-for.7M1coUrpEjWU0hB9BFlGt9.html Pyrone89 (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pyrone89: How about losing the aggressive attitude. Take a look at WP:BURDEN while your at it.06:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSB (talk • contribs)

Nothing aggressive about it.

You asked for sources when it is in the global news. It is not like I am making some grand claim. You literally are asking for something that anyone in charge of editing a page on the person should have known about.

I then provide you with multiple sources and somehow you take offense. That is on your problem. Pyrone89 (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"How about checking the news?" comes across as aggresive. Just something to bear in mind. Also "You literally are asking for something that anyone in charge of editing a page on the person should have known about." is wrong on several counts. Firstly, no-one is "in charge". Secondly, the people who answer your request may not even follow Formula One or motorsport, they may just be dropping by, or they've seen that there is a request (on the special list) and responded. SSSB (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Why did you find it necessary to be snarky with the checking the news remark when you could have just provided the sources you should have provided in the first place? If you want something in the article, then provide a source for it instead of expecting others to go dig for sources for work you are asking them to do for you. If it's such global news, it shouldn't be difficult for you to include a source in your edit request. That and all the points SSSB raised, next edit request just provide the source right away. TylerBurden (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done SSSB (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2022

Please add a paragraph in the Personal life section about Verstappen's favorite clubs, PSV Eindhoven and FC Barcelona. Here is the reference (in Dutch). Klrfl Talk! 12:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done SSSB (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

wtf do the 1 and 2 superscripts mean

in F1 results table? 81.181.130.106 (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

They refer to his position in the sprint race, we need to update the key (haven't got time now) SSSB (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

We rather need a new key. Adding the sprint information is inappropriate since it is used in many articles that deals with content preceding the introduction of sprints.Tvx1 15:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

That's what I meant; update to a new key. I didn't mean: we need to update the existing key. SSSB (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 30 June 2022

Remove overlinks (Belgian-Dutch) from lede 2A01:36D:1200:4F8:D15F:707:91A9:4BE9 (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done SSSB (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Safety car withdrawal Abu Dhabi 2021

Do we keep long standing sentence that the safety car was withdrawn too early (although the FIA report has cited various reasons for the confusion), or do you think that reference to the early withdrawal of the safety car should be omitted? Brought it to the talk page to avoid edit warring. Various opinions on the matter would be appreciated. Thanks Koppite1 (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It should be left out because it is a false characterisation of the events. No relaible source whatsoever claims that the safety car was simply called in “too early”. The FIA themselves have stated that one regulation was not applied in full, but followed that there are other relevant regulations as well. Moreover, the Abu Dhabi stewards acknowledged that the racing director has overriding authority with regards to, among others, the safety car. Lastly, this is Max Verstappen’s article. This is not the right place to detail the race director’s actions. Max is about the only party who didn’t do anything wrong that day.Tvx1 16:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

If the sources do not support it then such an extraordinary claim shouldn't be in the article per WP:SYNTH, I also agree with the point that this is Verstappen's biography, not Michael Masi's or an article covering the specifics of the race (which both exist so this information would belong there, not in this article). TylerBurden (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Tvx1. In fact I would go further:

To say that the safety car was called in one lap too early (in the way your edit does, Special:Diff/1096606471) is plain wrong. The safety car was withdrawn too early becuase and only because lapped cars overtook. Had no lapped cars overtaken, then the safety car was called in at the correct time.

I think we can and should just replace The withdrawal of the safety car and the resumption of the race following the safety car period was met with controversy. Race director Michael Masi allowed only a certain number of lapped cars through, which after the race brought from the Mercedes team a protest and stated intention to appeal against the race result, arguing that all lapped cars should be allowed through, Red Bull counter argued that this was not specified by the wording of the regulations. The protest was rejected, although subsequent investigation by the FIA ruled that Masi had misinterpreted the rule and the wording of the rule was amended for the 2022 season to specify that "all" cars will unlap themselves (at the race director's discretion) rather than "any". Verstappen passed Hamilton at turn 5 of the final lap of the race to become the 34th Formula One World Drivers' Champion. with Verstappen passed Hamilton at turn 5 of the final lap of the race to become the 34th Formula One World Drivers' Champion. Mercedes protested the result on the grounds that the safety car procedure was not properly followed, which was not upheld. An investigation later ruled that the race director had unintentionally misinterpreted the rules. SSSB (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The last sentence of your suggested paragraph is simply wrong. This is the actual report of the investigation and the only relevant point it contains is point 31, which simply states that there are multiple interpretations possible of the relevant regulations. At no point does it state that Masi made an error or misinterpretation with regards to these regulations. The only action the report rules an error is him not having correctly identified all lapped cars. And all in all, I find the suggested text is still overly long for this article.Tvx1 22:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Then cut the final sentence. After we cut that sentence, I don't see how we can make it any shorter. SSSB (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Last sentence maybe include something along the lines of Masi making a human error, but acted in good faith.

Masi acted in good faith but made human error, FIA's Abu Dhabi GP report says | Reuters

FIA ANNOUNCES WORLD MOTOR SPORT COUNCIL DECISIONS | Federation Internationale de l'Automobile Koppite1 (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

But as explained repeatedly, the human error the FIA acknowledged is Masi not correctly identifying all lapped cars and not him calling the safety car at the wrong moment. They have not mentioned an error or misinterpretation with regards to the latter at all. And I can't see the point of mentioning the lapped cars error here in Max Verstappen's article, as even if all lapped cars had been correctly identified and let through Hamilton would still have been a sitting duck and the outcome would have been almost certainly the same. I really don't understand why such an effort is made here to try to discredit Verstappen's world championship win because of one incident near the end of the last race of a 22-race season, that featured many key moments that with a different outcome could have produced a different champion. All of this is largely undue.Tvx1 10:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

If Masi unlapped all cars - the safety car would have still been out for lap 58 and the race would have finished under a safety car.

Masi made an error with the unlapping of the cars (the report states it was a human error)- this is supposed to be an encyclopedia-we can't omit pertinent facts because you think it will discredit Max's title. Koppite1 (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

But you are attempting to insert half-truths, because the reality is that Masi could have chosen not to let any of the lapped cars through, and Max could still have won the title. To state that Masi made a mistake without context is meaningless, and the only way to include the relevant context neutrally would be insert an entire paragraph of analysis and opinion of what could have happened in various scenarios, which is completely WP:UNDUE. The content that is relevant and can be presented both neutrally and with due emphasis relative to the rest of the biography is that he won the race, (and by extension the title), but it was protested. If readers want to know why it was protested, they can read the race report. SSSB (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

"But you are attempting to insert half-truths, because the reality is that Masi could have chosen not to let any of the lapped cars through, and Max could still have won the title"

?

If Masi had chosen to not let any of the lapped cars through, then there would be 5? cars in between Max and Lewis....so Max would have to negotiate 5 cars before getting anywhere near Lewis---all in the space of 1 lap. Most likely, in that scenario, Lewis is 2021 WDC champ

I'm not really sure what your point is. All i'm saying is that we can't conveniently omit that Masi made an error with the unlapping of the cars as the previous poster requested simply because it may discredit Max's title. I have no objection to including context. Koppite1 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. There was no obligation to finish behind the safety car whatsoever even if all lapped cars had been correctly let through. It's not an automated procedure. This has been dissed out in full by all involved parties on the day of the race. The race director has the ultimate authority to decide when the safety car procedure ends. It would always have come in when it did. That's why mentioning this error here is undue. It made no difference whatsoever. I really don't know how we can this through to you, even though clearly no-one agrees with you. Mentioning this is also undue in the story of the entire season. It falsely implies that Verstappen only won the title because of that one event, when in reality to played out over an entire 22 race season which also had multiple key moments where Verstappen controversially lost important points which should have allowed him to clinch the title much earlier.Tvx1 19:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

You are missing the point--if All cars were unlapped, this process would not have been completed before lap 58. In other words, there would not have been any laps left to go racing again. I'm not quite sure why this is so hard for you to grasp.

And i think with context, the fact that Masi made a mistake with this pivotal unlapping needs to be mentioned,. We are an encyclopedia. We shouldn't be omitting or hiding pertinent facts. Koppite1 (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're telling untruths here. There was plenty of time for those just two extra cars to pass the safety car, the safety car to come in and the race to resume. Massi's made no difference whatsoever. No source whatsoever agrees it did. We're not hiding or omitting any pertinent facts here because these facts aren't pertinent at all. Only you think that they are and no one agrees with you. And as I questioned time and time again, why are you so obsessed with detailing this one moment so much, to try to downplay Verstappen's title, while not having any interest in detailing any of the other key moments where Verstappen controversially lost important points.Tvx1 12:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It was not until well into lap 57 that the track was safe - Masi ordered some of the lapped cars through as soon as it was safe. So there was no way he could unlap all the cars BEFORE lap 58 and have a lap of racing on lap 58-there simply wasn't time to unlap the other 3 extra cars.

Anyway we are going round in circles. Masi's unlapping mistake is already included in the current text. That you think it reflects badly on Max's title isn't a good enough reason to remove it. Koppite1 (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The reason to remove is because it isn't presented neutrally, described accurately and the article describes it with an WP:DUE level of detail. It has nothing to do with "reflect[ing] badly on Max's title". SSSB (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

So there was no way he could unlap all the cars BEFORE lap 58 and have a lap of racing on lap 58-there simply wasn't time to unlap the other 3 extra cars
— User:Koppite1

What on earth is that based on?? It's nothing but your personal conjecture. There were 7 corners in between the spot the last car unlapped and the pit entry. That's more than enough time and space for just three more cars to unlap. All they had to do is put their feet on the throttle at the same moment the other four lapped cars did. Nothing you pretend here is fact, let alone pertinent. It's your personal, clearly incorrect guesswork.Tvx1 20:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Tvx, I don't know about this "only you think that and no one agrees with you" stuff. I agree with him, as many people do. It was one of the most controversial episodes in F1 history, no matter who likes to think 'Nothing to see here, move on'. The other three lapped cars were back behind Verstappen, and I believe they would not have been unable to unlap themselves and get clear before the last lap started. You accept that there has to be a reason they were not allowed to unlap themselves, surely? So what do you think the reason was? The Safety Car did not pit at the end of the following lap, as the regulation stipulated, and as the FIA report admitted (Point 13). Saying "That's more than enough time and space for just three more cars to unlap. All they had to do is put their feet on the throttle at the same moment the other four lapped cars did." is nothing but your personal conjecture. Stick to the facts and try not to worry about Verstappen's title being devalued. That's not something you can change, any more than he can. If you can't agree on a wording which suits everyone's biases, then I suggest taking it to an RfC, so people who don't have a personal preference can lend a hand. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

So isn't the appropriate venue for this the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix? Or Michael Masi? What is relevant to Verstappen is that he won the race, and the championship, as well as how he did it. That is all covered in the article currently, with the controversy also mentioned without an undue amount of weight. It becomes fairly obvious what the intentions here are when trying to put even more detail into that when the appropriate venues for it exist. TylerBurden (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The reason is very clear, Bretonbanquet, the FIA acknowledges it in their report. The remaining three cars were never identified by Masi as being lapped because of human error. He was thus fully in the belief that he had allowed all lapped cars through. As for the “people agreeing”, I was only referring to people in this discussion and editing the section of the article. And prior to your contribution, no-one agreed with them here. It was onevsall. But even if we use your edition, I have not seen any source demonstrating the “fact” that Verstappen only won the title because not all lapped cars unlapped. And “ The other three lapped cars were back behind Verstappen, and I believe they would not have been unable to unlap themselves and get clear before the last lap started.”, is just as much personal conjecture. Why don’t you stick to the facts yourself?Tvx1 08:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

So for the avoidance of doubt, Tvx, you believe the Race Director made an error, because he did not know the order of cars in the race he was directing? He believed Ricciardo, Stroll and... checks notes... Schumacher were on the lead lap, in third, fourth and fifth? Given the experience you have in watching F1, can you confirm you consider that credible? The FIA is not a reliable source in terms of the reasoning behind the misapplication of the unlapping procedure, as there is a conflict of interest in investigating your own employee, looking for wrongdoing that would incriminate the organisation. FIA sources shouldn't even be here with regard to that element. I don't know what you mean by "edition" – I do not edit this article (or those of other current drivers) except to remove vandalism. I have already stated that my belief that the other three lapped cars would not have had time to unlap themselves by the end of the lap was exactly that – my belief, after watching F1 for over forty years. I don't edit articles associated with this "race" because Wikipedia is bound to follow the official line. It turns a blind eye when the official line is not credible, particularly when it is defended vigorously. I find it concerning that the entirely credible theory that Verstappen only won the race because the Safety Car and unlapping procedure was not followed correctly is considered "undue weight". I repeat my suggestion that independent, non-F1 editors are consulted in order to create a non-biased viewpoint here, as well as at the other pertinent articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's my belief after having been following F1 closely for a very similar time period as you that it was easily possible for just three more cars to unlap and get clear in time by just accelerating at the same time as the cars that unlapped at the unlapping signal. There is no factual evidence the stance of you two is based on, only "because we think so's". There were seven more corners to negotiate before the pit lane. Just look at how far clear the unlapped cars got using just those eight corners of the final sector. As for the rest of your post, I'm not going to delve too deep into it. We have always considered the FIA a reputable source and there is no reason to stop doing so. It is not our job to synthesize the events ourselves and write in our articles what we think the FIA should be concluded. That would violate almost every pillar of Wikipedia. And lastly yes, I find it credible that a human being who had to resolve multiple issues within the space of seconds, while being bullied over the radio by hysterical team manager human beings, mishandled a manual procedure that normally takes some time and double-checking to complete. And the theory that Verstappen only won the race "because the Safety Car and unlapping procedure was not followed correctly" is not that very credible since that procedure was not the only decisive factor. For instance, Mercedes and Hamilton missed the opportunity to pit as well when the safety car came out, which would have given them a good chance to hold on to the win.Tvx1 15:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Why would they have accelerated at the same time? They have to wait until the car ahead has gone, bearing in mind none of them is in any particular hurry. In any traffic situation, a queue of cars does not all accelerate simultaneously. Schumacher had four spread-out cars to pass in seven corners, his pace regulated by the other lapped runners ahead of him as well as having no need to rush himself, and he had to get well clear of Hamilton, all before the start-finish line. It is absolutely absurd to believe that was "easily possible". I find it strange that your beliefs are facts, yet those beliefs with which you do not agree, are "we think sos". The FIA is a reliable source, but not when investigating itself. That should be self-evident, and I am surprised FIA sources have been permitted in these articles. I find the idea risible that anyone in the Race Director's position would have so little understanding of the race order, which had been constant for some laps, regardless of any pressures from anywhere else, that he didn't even know which cars were on which lap. Literally all he had to do if he was confused, was to look at the graphics that the whole world could see at the same time. Or maybe he considered it perfectly regular that Ricciardo and Stroll had suddenly appeared ahead of third-place man Sainz, each gaining nine places out of nowhere. Have you considered that Mercedes did not pit Hamilton because they knew he would have won if the Race Director had simply followed the rules? Had Hamilton pitted, Verstappen would not have done so, taken the lead and the race would have ended under the Safety Car, as it should have done. I see you have no intention of seeking outside assistance to resolve this; I assume because your beliefs are facts and contrary beliefs are merely opinions. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This is getting ridculous. The simple fact is that any variations of "If Masi had applied the rules as intended..." are conjecture. Because had Masi choosen between letting all cars through or none, nobody has anyway of knowing what he would have done. Had Masi not let any cars unlap themsleves, it is possible (in theory) for Verstappen to have overtaken Hamilton (if lapped cars were complient). I wouldn't even be surprised if Masi had thrown a red flag for the sole purpose to allow racing to allow a final lap show down on equal terms. So I don't understand why this discussion keeps delving into the ifs and buts of the race direction and possible outcomes.

There are a few relevant facts here:

1. Hamilton was confortable leading before the SC
2. Verstappen overtook Hamilton at the SC restart
3. The result was protested on the grounds that the SC procedure was not suffiecently followed
4. The protest was rejected.

Other details such as blame/fault, alternative outcomes, can not be realistically be presented here in both a neutral and due manner, becuase of the complexity, depth and variaty of arguments. But if one of you has a suggestion, I'll be glad to hear it. SSSB (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 9 July 2022

Add current person template, as he is participating in the Austrian GP} 62.165.249.106 (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done What do you mean by "current person template"? DH85868993 (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@DH85868993:, I can only assume they mean {{Current person}}. The only information that rapidly changes for this article is the stats, and I therefore don't think such a template is appropriate here. SSSB (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@SSSB: Ah, I wasn't aware of that template. I agree that it's not appropriate here. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2022

Change: “ teammate Ricciardo pressed home Red Bull's advantage at the track by taking pole position and the race win.” As Ricciardo did not win the race, he came second due to a bad pitstop. 90.197.117.151 (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done I think you may be mixing up your years. Ricciardo did win the 2018 Monaco Grand Prix, which is the race under discussion in that paragraph. Pyrope 00:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2022

He is been appointed as officer of the order of Orange-Nassau, a civil dutch merit, ‘OON’ i think it is.90.162.40.73 (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Order of Orange-Nassau

Requesting the following category to be added to the article since this is now official. 62.255.216.34 (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/130857/verstappen-appointed-officer-in-the-order-of-orange-nassau.html

https://grandprixradio.nl/updates/max-verstappen-officier-in-orde-van-oranje-nassau

https://nos.nl/artikel/2442854-verstappen-onderscheiden-tot-officier-in-de-orde-van-oranje-nassau 62.255.216.34 (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment - he's listed in Category:Officers of the Order of Orange-Nassau. Mjroots (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Wrong number of wins

Infobox says 29 wins as of the 2022 Dutch Grand Prix, but it`s 30 in reality. 80.187.119.67 (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

That’s generated through a template that still needs to be updated for today’s race.Tvx1 16:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

If it didn't have to be edited through a complicated template, it would have been done hours ago. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that. Editors usually just over type the template. In any case, the time saved through the template easily out weighs the small time delay. SSSB (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not a complicated template. It's nothing but a basic numbers database really and these just need to be changed every race weekend. Moreover, this particle template, {{F1stat}}, has been in use for 10 years. That was even before I became a registered editor. It was when you were still a positive regular editor, so it surprises that you suddenly complain here about it after ten years of its usage.

I also agree with SSSB. One edit of a simple template is much less time-consuming than having to update the 60ish articles it's used in one by one.Tvx1 13:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I've always complained about it, if you'd ever taken any notice. I used to update every driver article within about 10 minutes of the end of each race. Someone else covered the team and season articles. Since the template was introduced, it's sporadic, slow, exclusive and occasionally inaccurate. It was a "solution" to a problem that didn't exist. I'm still a positive regular editor; I just refuse to waste my time in incessant debates with people who like arguing more than editing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Until the end of 2020, I used to ensure that {{F1stat}} was updated within 15 minutes of the end of each race. But I stopped doing that because:

• with the advent of {{F1cstat}} and {{F1R2020}}, I felt obliged to ensure that those templates were updated too and it was starting to get a bit onerous (I realise that extra work was self-inflicted), and
• I found that for the last 5 laps of every race I was concentrating on the order of the top 10 (so I could start updating the templates immediately after the race) rather than enjoying the on-track action.

But having had a break for 1.5 years, I'm happy to go back to ensuring {{F1stat}} is updated within 15 minutes after each race (but now I'll enjoy the end of the race and then worry about the order of the top 10). I'll leave updating {{F1R2022}} to others, and {{F1cstat}} can be updated in "slow time" (sometimes it isn't updated until 2 days after the race and nobody seems to notice/care). DH85868993 (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see evidence of yourself being a good, positive editor, however. Certainly not with regard to this project. All you have been doing here lately is criticizing us and our editorial practices. A good, positive editor would have been collaborative and actually made the requested update themself instead of venting frustration. Moreover, it is clear to me that you still don't even have a clue what you're talking about. The infobox figures are generated through a stats template that was introduced ten years ago and you don't appear to have taken part in the discussion approving it, nor can I find any participation from you in any subsequent archived discussion regarding that particular template. I have certainly taken notice of your recent complaints, but they were regarding the much more recent F1RXXXX templates intended for result matrices. And if YOU'd noticed, I have expressed my thoughts its usage can be simplified. It's nice that you were able to update all driver's articles in 10 minutes, but in total there are over 100 articles that need to be updated after every race and if no two volunteers are available simultaneously, that takes well over half an hour to do. The templates can actually reduce that to a handful of minutes because only a handful of updates are left required. The issue last week was not a template being "sporadic, slow, exclusive and occasionally incaccurate" (almost all of which is false), but a volunteer just not having the time at the end of the race. You simply took a wild, misdirected shot here. We are all volunteers dedicating whatever free time we can spare to this project, so I'd be nice to show some respect for that.

DH85868993, don't let yourself be bullied into imposing any deadline. Wikipedia just doesn't have them. There is no obligation for these templates to be updated within fifteen minutes on event. We all immensely appreciate the immense efforts you put into this project.

On a related note, couldn't {{F1stat}} and {{F1cstat}} simply be merged. Surely it should be able to handle that small amount of aditional parameters and the 30 or so articles it is transcluded into.Tvx1 10:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Just be extremely careful about where you're going with comments like that. Refresh your memory regarding WP:NPA because in my opinion you're already over the line. That guideline prevents me from detailing just what I think of what's happened to this project since certain editors became involved. Debates have become utterly intractable and impossible to resolve. I cannot make the required update because I don't understand how to do it. Be very careful how you address that. Rest assured, if the template(s) were effective, you wouldn't get comments like the one from the OP. Criticising your editorial practices is acceptable; it's about time you understood that, and accept when practices are dysfunctional. Telling me I don't have a clue what I'm talking about is a personal attack. Consider striking that comment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I won't strike anything because it's a simple truth. Let egos out of this, because that is not going to lead us anywhere. You were complaining about the wrong thing. And it seems you still don't understand what the actual problem was. The "problem" was not a template, but the regular editor who normally takes care of updates lacking time last Sunday. That sort of thing happens on a volunteer project. Meanwhile, the updates for the Italian Grand Prix have been executed in a more than acceptable timeframe. As for the perceived difficulty in using templates like {{F1R2022}}, I will admit that the docs could actually do a better job of explaining how to use the template. {{#invoke:Sports table/WDL|function}}, is an example of how a doc is properly used to explain how to use a template or a module.Tvx1 15:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I see, so I "don't have a clue" but it's not a personal attack because it's "a simple truth". That will get you nowhere on the admin boards, to which you are certainly no stranger. I raised an issue with these templates and you have made it an ad hominem personal attack. I could give you a "simple truth" or two, if you'd like. Don't patronise me by trying to tell me this is a volunteer project; I've been here longer than you have. And let me tell you, I have never been blocked for Disruptive editing: Repeated wikilawyering/deliberate misinterpretation of policy to the point of threatening/harassing other editors. That's the way you operate and have always operated, and that is a simple truth. I don't edit F1 articles any more because you and one or two others removed all the enjoyment from it with behaviour like that which got you blocked. Crack on and run it the way you want. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2022

Under F1 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix controversy

Michael Masi didn't let the safety car complete another lap as per the sporting regulations.

(This was confirmed by FIA so should be included) 2A00:23C6:F20F:E701:6D4A:2F05:A2DE:2FA2 (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2022

Max is now a two time world champion 80.44.115.51 (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, for the time being. The percentage of points awarded at Japan still needs to be clarified.Tvx1 08:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It has been confirmed by the FIA. Bamiel1 (talk) 08:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done, the race was not ended prematurely with a red flag, but at full time by the checkered flag. Full points awarded.Tvx1 08:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2022

He has the nationality of both The Netherlands and Belgium. Not only The Netherlands Artibe (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Not done. It says so in the lead. In the infobox the nationality is under "Formula One World Championship career", and the article says that he uses the Dutch flag whilst racing. --Mvqr (talk) 10:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2022

In subsection Max Verstappen#Formula One records add this line in the table:
| '''[[List of Formula One driver records#Most championship points in a season|Most championship points in a season]]''' | 416 (ongoing) | [[2022 Mexico City Grand Prix]] |<ref>{{Cite web|title=Statistics Drivers – Points - In a year|url=https://www.statsf1.com/en/statistiques/pilote/point/annee.aspx#|website=Stats F1}}</ref> Aparecidas (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done (with slight variations from the requested text). DH85868993 (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Add Formula One driver records: Most wins before first pole position

Add Formula One driver records: Most wins before first pole position 93.117.234.222 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 15:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Please, that’s not a record in any way. Only a trivial achievement.Tvx1 19:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Early Racing Car career

Have just been checking on Youtube and it seems that he was in a racing car a little early November 13, 2013:

And there's many more as well.

References

Add Formula one driver records:

Largest points deficit overturned to become champion – 46 (2022)

Wins from the most different grid slots in a year – 7 (2022)

Most wins in a season outside pole position – 9 (2022)

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/the-f1-records-verstappen-and-red-bull-broke-in-2022/10403497/ 93.117.234.222 (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Top of page image update

I have updated the top of page image to a more recent one thanks to Wastrick for the image--MKL123 (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Revert. It would be nice if we actually can see Verstappen instead of his car.Lobo151 (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree please revert back. MKL123 (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

No, this article is about Max Verstappen so it would be nice if we actually see him in the infobox photo.Lobo151 (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop changing the main photo. For the article we want a clear close up photo.Lobo151 (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I found a slightly more recent close up pic from 2019 pre season testing provided by Marc Alvarado . Hope this pleases you more. MKL123 (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The current one is from a far better quality than that one. There is no need to change.Lobo151 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I would dispute that that. MKL123 (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Then please explain. The photo is clearly cropped so why is it better?Lobo151 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I have uploaded another image from Wikimedia commons . The image though cropped shows Verstappens face relatively well. Verstappen has aed quite a bit facially since the 2017 image previously used. The image is courtesy of nabtifal MKL123 (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Again the photo is of a lower quality and no improvement of the current one.Lobo151 (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Lobo, his appearance hasn't really changed enough to abandon a good quality image for a more recent one of poorer quality. TylerBurden (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2023

We can add the officially unofficial subreddit for Max Verstappen as external source https://www.reddit.com/r/MaxVerstappenRacing/ Tixoxoxo (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Read WP:ELNO — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2023

Under the section 2021 Championship. There is a statement of "The protest was rejected, although subsequent investigation by the FIA ruled that Masi had misinterpreted the rule and the wording of the rule was amended for the 2022 season to specify that "all" cars will unlap themselves (at the race director's discretion) rather than "any"."

The phrase "FIA ruled that Masi had misinterpreted the rule" Should be removed as there was no source nor any finding that the rule was misinterpreted. It was instead stated that the rule could be interpreted multiple ways and was thus changed to have a defined interpretation. Kartracer6 (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Parents

As a matter of basic etiquette, it would be appropriate to put both his parents names, not just the father. 2001:7E8:F621:8901:B1AF:829E:81C7:EDCA (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Her name is in the first sentence of the personal life section. Tvx1 14:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

"Crashtappen" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Crashtappen has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 5 § Crashtappen until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 19:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"Crashstappen" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Crashstappen has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 5 § Crashstappen until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 19:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2023

109.204.255.233 (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC) Write that max verstappen is the only person who have on 10 straight race and by Toto Wolff that shit is wikipedia stuff

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2023

Max Verstappen equalled the record for most consecutive top 2 finishes (2022 Abu Dhabi GP - 2023 Italian GP) and so that should be put on the record thing. The record is shared with Schumacher. Investigatetower7 (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Championships

Max is listed as having won the 2023 championship. He has not won it yet. 2603:7081:7500:A98:FCFD:6BE2:2C94:9458 (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2023

Amount of Formula 1 Championships to 3 Corrector876677 (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pinchme123 (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Add OOG alongside his name

Should we add the Order of Orange-Nassau to his name? just like Lewis has MBE Elmarkus (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes :) 86.18.216.81 (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Titles, prefixes, or post-nominals are not used in the Netherlands, as mentioned on the page of the Order of Orange-Nassau Faabvk (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Equalled the record for most wins from pole position in a season

Verstappen equalled the record of most wins from pole position in a season at the 2023 japanese GP, so that should be put under the records thing ... He shares the record with sebastian Vettel and Nigel Mansell 93.160.12.199 (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there should be a "most wins from pole position" category included, as it is on the list of formula one driving records wikipedia page. AstralNomad (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

(single season, obviously) AstralNomad (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Listed on Most wins from pole position in a season, so added to the records section.LRataplan (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2023

Verstappen equalled the record for most hat tricks in a season (5) at the 2023 Qatar GP so that should be put under the record thing. The record is shared with Schumacher. There's a source for it here https://www.statsf1.com/en/statistiques/pilote/divers/detail-max-verstappen--hattrick.aspx

He also equalled the record for most races left in a season when becoming world champion (6). This record is also shared with Schumacher and should also be put under the record tab thing. Here's a source https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.facts-and-stats-rookie-piastri-claims-first-f1-win-of-any-kind-in-qatar.1faYZYwjJHzdwVggJG212l.html Investigatetower7 (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Philroc (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Starting sentence with years of championship

The start of the article with "... and the 2021, 2022, and 2023 Formula One World Champion." seems a bit clunky to me. Would it perhaps be better to say something like "the current 3-time Formula One World Champion" or just include the 2023 title and leave the rest for the infobox? Keithshep (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is a possible better version: MV is a Belgian and Dutch racing driver competing under the Dutch flag in Formula One with Red Bull Racing, and the current Formula One World Champion, having won the 2021, 2022, and 2023 Championships. Aparecidas (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Not very different is it? Do we really need to state each specific year. Why not write "is a three-times world champion" or "triple world champion", like we do with Sir Jackie Stewart.Tvx1 21:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes however for the other 3-times champions the years are specified:

• Ayrton Senna was a Brazilian racing driver who won the Formula One World Drivers' Championship in 1988, 1990, and 1991.
• Nelson Piquet is a Brazilian retired racing driver and businessman who won the World Drivers' Championship three times in the years 1981, 1983 and 1987.
• Sir John Arthur Brabham was an Australian racing driver who was Formula One World Champion in 1959, 1960, and 1966.
• Niki Lauda was an Austrian Formula One driver and aviation entrepreneur. He was a three-time Formula One World Drivers' Champion, winning in 1975, 1977 and 1984 (...)

Years are not specified for drivers with more than 3 championships. Aparecidas (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I feel three-times world champion should be sufficient for all. Tvx1 16:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

If for all other other 3-times world champions the years are specified. Then it should be specified here also. I don't agree that only three-times world champion is sufficient. What is the issue with the years being mentioned in the intro? It is the most notable. Lobo151 (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@DualSkream Please discuss here, before deleting any information. Lobo151 (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

As I pointed out already, that is not true. Why are the years so important to put in the lead? Once we get to three or more titles that just becomes clumsy and unwieldy. The lead should summarise the most important facts of the article and that is that he is a triple world champion, not when he won those titles. Tvx1 08:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

But when you remove the years one of the most important fact, that he is the current World champion, will be lost. So that should be mentioned in the lead. So something like this?

"is a Belgian and Dutch racing driver. A three-time and current Formula One World Drivers' Champion. Verstappen competes under the Dutch flag in Formula One with Red Bull Racing" Lobo151 (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Good point, that would work.Tvx1 09:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Max was born in Belgium, yet he's listed as Dutch-Belgian.

This should probably be fixed ;) 31.50.88.113 (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean; in the opening paragraph he is stated to be Belgian-Dutch. Pyrope 20:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Max has both the Dutch and Belgian nationality (("Dit is waarom Max Verstappen niet onder de Belgische vlag rijdt"., "Max Verstappen: Nederlands paspoort aangevraagd op 18-jarige leeftijd".) On his 18th birthday, he officially filed for Dutch citizenship but technically, he has had both nationalities since birth ("Verstappen over Vlaamse nationaliteit: Ik ben trots om beide nationaliteiten te hebben"., "'Belg' Verstappen vroeg direct toen hij achttien jaar werd Nederlands paspoort aan".) However, he races under the Dutch flag exclusively. In my opinion, that makes him a Dutch driver who also happens to have some Belgian paperwork but I disengaged from that discussion a long time ago. Dutch-Belgian it is.

As for the place of birth: both The Netherlands and Belgium have ius sanguinis, meaning the nationality of the parents decides the nationality of the child. Verstappen has a Dutch father and a Belgian mother. In countries like the USA, the rule is ius solis, meaning that being born in that country gets you that nationality. This does not apply to Max. LRataplan (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Using the normal convention of 'adjective-substantive' (e.g. Irish-American) the current form of words does conform to the "Dutch driver who also happens to have some Belgian paperwork" model. No? Pyrope 19:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s a bit more complicated than that. Belgium uses both jus sangiunis and jus soli. Tvx1 10:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Max Verstappen identifies as Dutch, he has stated in several publications. Therefore calling him Dutch-Belgian would seem more appropriate to me than the current 'Belgian and Dutch'. The latter seems to suggest he is more Belgian than Dutch, which is not the case. Similarly, Lando Norris is called 'British and Belgian', which does justice to the fact that Norris identifies more as a Briton than as a Belgian citizen. Jeroen1961 (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The order in which nationalities appear in an article has nothing to do with the personal order of importance they have for the subject. Your just reading to much into things. Tvx1 08:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

In that case, what is the order supposed to be based on? It clearly isn't alfabetical, nor importance as you say. At the moment of speaking, Max does not even have a Belgian passport and hasn't for multiple years (as he wouldn't be allowed to under Dutch law, and as far as I know neither would he under Belgian law). Ouroboros777 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? B comes ahead of D in the Latin alphabet that our language uses, so this looks very much alphabetical to me. And why on earth would he not be allowed to have a Belgian passport?? He was born and declared in Belgium to a Belgian parent. He has every right to their passport, that’s how birth right works. Dutch nationality law doesn’t even matter because that has no saying about the issuing of Belgian passport. And this isn’t even relevant, because holding a valid travel document booklet is not required to have that nationality. Looks like you actually don’t know those laws that well.Tvx1 21:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Lando Norris is stated to be British and Belgian, as far as I know E comes ahead of R in that same alphabet that you are talking about, so if it is alphabetical, that should list Belgian first as well.

According to Dutch law, if you get Dutch nationality you must relinquish your old nationality if that is possible. Birth right might change that normally, but he requested Dutch nationality aged 18, as is stated here [1]https://www.nu.nl/formule-1/6221291/belg-verstappen-vroeg-direct-toen-hij-achttien-jaar-werd-nederlands-paspoort-aan.html. In a case like that (i.e. a case where he didn't have both to start with), he would be forced to give up his Belgian nationality in order to get the Dutch equivalent. As Belgian law lets him (some countries don't allow you to relinquish your nationality), he is very unlikely to still have Belgian nationality. Ouroboros777 (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

But this isn’t a case of not having both to start with. He WAS quite patently born with both, because his parents each have one of his nationalities and the legal status of their relationship when he was born meant he automatically received these two nationalities. He quite patently was already Dutch prior to turning eightteen, because he already raced in F1 under that nationality when he was seventeen. So what he acquired when he was eightteen was most definitely NOT a nationality. Acquiring a passport≠acquiring a nationality.A passport is nothing but a travel document. It’s not a requisite for having a nationaility. Not in his countries at least. I myself don’t have a valid passport at this time, yet a very much still have my nationality and my citizenship. This is because I live in the EU and you only need a passport if you leave that EU, which I rarely do. I think I had to acquire a passport three seperate times already during my life, but I didn’t acquire that nationality each time. There is no legal reason whatsoever why Verstappen wouldn’t be Belgian anymore. Heck, the source you cited actually refers to his dual nationalities multiple times and quotes him directly stating how happy he is with both of his nationalities.Tvx1 16:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I think Belgian-Dutch would be the most accurate way to describe him. It's true he passes as both Belgian and Dutch, however Max himself has said he feels more Dutch as he grew up around Dutch people and went to school in the Netherlands, and living near the border, he only came back to his home in Belgium to sleep. Similar to how a person with Chinese parents born and raised in San Francisco would be Chinese American, Max Verstappen is Belgian-Dutch. The first person is American, and Max is Dutch, but the first descriptor provides clarity on what kind of Dutch/American/etc. person you are. Verstappen is Dutch - Belgian Dutch to be exact. Therefore, I propose the opening to his article be reverted back to Belgian-Dutch. SpotifyGreaterThanAppleMusic (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2024

Can Max‘s photograph please be updated to something from 2024? The photo currently being used on his profile is from 2017 and very outdated. 2A02:C7C:2F39:1000:E81F:ADF9:5BFD:FE20 (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. PianoDan (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2024

To add on to the '2024 season' under the Formula One career section:

Change this:

2024 season Verstappen began the 2024 season with his fifth career grand slam at the Bahrain Grand Prix and followed this with another pole and victory at the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix. He took pole again at the Australian Grand Prix but was forced into retirement with a brake fire, ending his nine-race winning streak and marking his first retirement in two years.[255]

To this:

2024 season Verstappen began the 2024 season with his fifth career grand slam at the Bahrain Grand Prix and followed this with another pole and victory at the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix. He took pole again at the Australian Grand Prix but was forced into retirement with a brake fire, ending his nine-race winning streak and marking his first retirement in two years. Verstappen continued to dominate at the next race, the Japanese Grand Prix, with a pole and victory. 116.14.76.213 (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

 Already done Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Why update photo?

This one is from 2017 109.38.134.1 (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2024

Last win: switch to "2024 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix" from "2024 Chinese Grand Prix" Mkucherenko (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done DH85868993 (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

List of Wins Discussion (2024)

This discussion will surround multiple articles and rules regarding lists, and list sensibilities. This is a long read and focuses on the disagreements with the denied split by one user, Tvx1, whom I previously tried to reach out to. Unfortunately, due to no reply, I wanted to lay the case down here regarding list notabilities and the split to draft list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Max_Verstappen

User Tvx1 asserts a consensus has been reached that the draft list is not notable, however, whilst not wishing to use WP:OTHERSTUFF , there is a strong precedent for this type of list for Formula 1 drivers as 5 drivers of similar notability have featured lists in this format. If not for the pattern of featured lists here then I would not write, however, due to this I believe that Tvx1 is wrongly asserting there is a consensus against such articles. Aside from Tvx1 and user Bretonbanquet whom have strong dissent, this has featured list precedent and seemingly a consensus in favour of this submission on the 2023 split discussion. Tvx1 has a history of being overruled for their opinions on such lists, as evidenced in the talk pages for the featured lists for existing F1 driver wins (and some history of accepted deletion requests). It is worth noting that historically these list pages existed for the top 5 drivers on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_winners , however now only one of the top 6 does not have such a list: that being Verstappen.

Previously, the top 5 drivers by wins all had lists of their wins, and whilst https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Damon_Hill (a Tvx1 request) is clear that less notable drivers (of whom in this list only one is in the top 10) do not deserve such lists, sitting at third in all time wins it becomes harder to accept this argument and it is implied from Tvx1's logic in this request being limited to just these lists that the other more notable lists listed below of top 5 drivers are notable. A similar argument was made in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Max_Verstappen on the original deletion. However, a WP:CRUFT argument is made here which is an argument to apply to all such lists hence if this fails for fancruft, I believe an AfD should be created to delete all below for the same to bring consistency to the group.

Tvx1 also advocated for deleting these featured lists, and whilst I disagree with these being facruft and believe them to be notable, I do agree that there should be a consensus on the lists as a group and a clear definition of what counts as notable in Formula 1 listings. Personally I believe that Senna's 41 wins are often discussed as a benchmark set of wins, with the notable moment of Schumacher crying when asked about how he compares to them, and the article for deletion of the Senna list strongly agrees. As such my proposal is that with this discussion we set the notability criteria to be 41 or more wins where the wins have at least 2 articles discussing them as a group using the Ayrton Senna list as the benchmark. This creates a clear benchmark for notability for any future discussions and will keep the lists consistent without over spilling into non-notable drivers, and would include this Verstappen draft.

I will add, I believe at now 60, the list of wins for Verstappen is unwieldy to look through on his racing record and at 3rd of all time and as of writing this, and also in newspaper headlines globally for winning, I believe this is a notable article for both all time achievement and current cultural zeitgeist. The draft article is regularly updated and maintained like an active list with user Tvx1 still contributing to keeping it of a high standard. If this draft is never to be published this is immense wasted effort for all involved, as such I am re-opening this discussion with the intent to get a definitive answer, establish a proposal of notability criteria, and propose for deletions all articles and drafts which are considered not notable as any inconsistency could become perceived as a dislike or favour for one particular driver over another if a driver with 10 wins had a list and a driver with 100 did not.

For notability of Verstappen's wins as a set, I present the following articles from racing related media to add to the existing draft which has its own source. https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/235892/how-many-wins-does-max-verstappen-have-in-formula-1.html https://www.topgear.com/car-news/formula-one/max-verstappens-top-10-f1-wins-so-far https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/ranking-verstappens-10-f1-wins-so-far/ https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/sep/21/max-verstappen-dismisses-boring-label-after-red-bull-f1-dominance https://www.espn.co.uk/racing/story/_/id/39974862/who-test-max-verstappen-f1-dominance-chinese-gp-win https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/oct/08/max-verstappen-rewrites-rules-of-f1-dominance-in-cruise-to-third-title

Whilst I don't believe these are the worlds highest quality sources (although The Guardian is a newspaper of record), as part of defining criteria I propose we also define what articles count when discussing wins as a grouping for notability - of the sources in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Lewis_Hamilton#Bibliography none are explicitly about the wins as a grouping so this should be considered also for updates with more sources (and considering the notability of Hamilton, should these lists remain, this list I would expect is a gold standard as a featured list)

This is not a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, this is an argument of notability and fancruft and my inclusion of these other articles and discussions serves to bring those new to this discussion the previous discussions about these lists. Whilst I do not know if there is a larger motorsport or Formula 1 project to cross post to, I believe this should be considered a discussion on all such lists and if possible linked to there.

Finally for this Verstappen article WP:SIZESPLIT implies the need for a split, which can be done in this split by moving some discussion of his wins over to the list and WP:LISTN states "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists."

So here is my attempt to get us to find a consensus on the grouping itself. Please discuss if the GROUPING (List of wins by driver) is notable, and if so what should be the notability criteria. Once you have proposed these, then discuss if this split should go ahead based on your opinions and let us try and reach consensus to delete such articles or keep them.

The featured lists of all other drivers above 40 wins for precedent are below, implying a Wiki-wide consensus that such articles are in fact notable and that this denial is worthy of being discussed to find what the notability criteria are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Lewis_Hamilton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Michael_Schumacher

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Ayrton_Senna

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Alain_Prost

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Sebastian_Vettel 86.135.32.32 (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Those other articles are up for deletion, please consider: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton 159.242.125.170 (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the list of wins just repeating data already presented in the career of Max Verstappen page? Why repeat that? --Falcadore (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Split (2023)

Split Max Verstappen into Max Verstappen and List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen. As the driver with the 5th most wins of all time, above Ayrton Senna, well on the way to becoming an all-time great, I feel its only right that he gets a win list article of his own. There's already a detailed draft at Draft:List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen. I understand that the creation of this article has been requested and denied multiple times in the past, but a lot has changed. A third consecutive championship is almost certain following a record-breaking 10-race win-streak, and he is rapidly approaching 50 wins. If agreed, I cannot do the split. MaxLikesStuff (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

No. It has been demonstrated very clearly through a number of deletion discussions that this topic does not satisfy Wikipedia:LISTN. Amount wins or world titles is irrelevant, and he hasn’t done anything that no-one did before on those subjects. Tvx1 10:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if amount of wins and championships are irrelevant and "he hasn’t done anything that no-one did before on those subjects" then why does someone like Sebastian Vettel have his own list of wins? He wasn't the first person to get 53 wins, he wasn't the first person to win 4 WDC, he wasn't the first person to win 13 races in a season, etc. He WAS the first person to win 9 races in a row, but Max Verstappen beat that recently.

And if stats DO matter, Ayrton Senna has his own list, yet he has 7 less wins than Verstappen right now.

We're talking about a guy (Verstappen) that is being talked as one of the greatest of all time and the best talent on the grid by many journalists and old F1 drivers for the last years, yet he doesn't have a list? It makes absolutely no sense and no offense, but I'm very sure you do not watch F1 if you don't consider Verstappen relevant enough for a list of wins. 181.22.153.220 (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Because someone just boldly created these and no-one bothered to have them deleted (yet). People don’t “deserve” these articles on achievement. The subject needs to adhere to our notability guidelines and this just doesn’t. That was discussed multiple times and this article was deleted just as often. Also see Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Tvx1 08:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Strongly support the split. Having read Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'd say that is hilariosly inapplicable. It would be applicable against arguments like 'a list of American Idol winners exists'. "Boldly created" and "not deleted (yet)" is equally inapplicable: HAM's and VET's pages are 6 years old, Schumi's page is 9 years old, and the pages for Prost and Senna are 4 and 8 years old, respectively. If notability was half an issue, those pages would have been lone gone by now. Then, there is tons of articles about VER's dominance and the discussion of some or all of his victories as a group (just a random example. You want a hundred more, no problem and you know it) qualifies the list page per "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" on said Wikipedia:LISTN. And personally, I find it interesting to know which races or circuits are likely to see records broken the next time MV gets in a car but that's me. Finally, I do find it astounding that 'crashstappen' as a redirect is considered notable and this isn't, and I'm not at all certain the opposition to the split isn't partial for some reason.LRataplan (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

You clearly have little understanding of these guidelines. Redirects don’t have anything to do with notability. Besides, you can nominate everything for deletion that you believe shouldn’t exist Tvx1 23:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

What I don't get is what is the criteria to create or not create such pages. If Hamilton/Vettel/Schumacher/Senna etc have their separate articles with wins, why shouldn't Verstappen? You say there isn't an understanding of these guidelines, so I would like a clarification for what exactly the guidelines are. Doesn't seem to be a very clear distinction. SpotifyGreaterThanAppleMusic (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• No to the split, and delete the other articles listing wins. There's no objective criteria regarding which drivers should get lists of wins and which shouldn't. Such glory pages are way beyond the remit of an encyclopedia: there are dozens of crappy low-rent websites for this stuff. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree, this is encyclopedic content that should be covered by WP. The fact that other websites already cover the subject is irrelevant. Aparecidas (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  No it is not irrelevant. It seems you don’t understand what Wikipedia is and what it is not. It certainly isn’t a fansite.Tvx1 22:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

No to the split. While his accomplishments are many, by themselves, they do not warrant a split and it does not seem to follow what is being done for other drivers like him. For these reasons, I do not support the request for a split. Jurisdicta (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean "it does not seem to follow what is being done for other drivers like him"? There are already similar lists for Prost, Senna, Hamilton and Schumacher. Aparecidas (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

All of which should probably be deleted per consensus. Stop mentioning WP:OTHERSTUFF. Tvx1 22:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes to the split because it is a notable subject. Existing lists for other drivers' wins are all featured lists. "Featured lists are what we believe to be the best lists on the English Wikipedia" so it is nonsense to claim that these existing lists should be deleted, you don't delete the best content of this encyclopedia. Aparecidas (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

How do you propose to decide which drivers should have a glory page list of wins and who shouldn't? What about Alonso, Lauda, Piquet, Fangio, Clark etc? Also, literally every scrap of the information in this "best content" is already available in other articles, so how on earth this stuff got to featured status is beyond me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no consensus on the notability of cross-categorization lists (see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Notability). As a general rule we can say that a list of wins is useful. If the list if shorter than 40 wins it can be kept in the driver's page. If longer than 40 wins it should be split to avoid long articles in accordance to WP:SIZESPLIT. Aparecidas (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You clearly don’t understand the guidelines you cite. A list of 40 items does not warrant a split in any conceivable way. Tvx1 22:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

No it’s not a notable subject. Full lists of wins are rarely discussed in the sources. I honestly do not know what I have to do to get this through to you.Tvx1 22:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

We always have to apply the guidelines. Just show us the guidelines explaining that the list is not notable, it's as simple as that. Aparecidas (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Show us the guideline or consensus that says 40 wins is the cut-off? Why not 35, or 30, or 25? Fangio won nearly half his WC GPs yet doesn't qualify? Clark won more than 1 in 3 of his GPs. Both have a better win ratio than Verstappen, yet are apparently unworthy? Give me something that suggests you're not just making it up as you go along. Also WP:SIZESPLIT is the wrong idea, because an article's size will not always correspond to the number of wins a driver has. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Right, forget about the 40 wins. Still, it would be valuable and useful to have a list of wins for Fangio and Clark and other notable drivers, this is encyclopedic content. And you are absolutely right, the decision to keep such lists in the main article or to split should depend on the article's size and not the length of the list, sorry for the confusion. Aparecidas (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You do realize that none of these driver articles actually include such lists, don’t you? The contest that you want to split off isn’t even here. And you know why? Because these detailed lists of wins are JUST NOT NOTABLE. Things like victory margins are just not important. The relevant guideline is WP:LISTN. That was actually established through an AFD. His number of wins was NEVER the argument.Tvx1 23:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The AfD did not establish the precedent for all such articles, hence the existence of the currently existing ones. You created this AfD, why did you not include the Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton, Vettel and Prost list? Coincidentally, those were at the time the top 5 drivers for all time wins (and also featured lists) which implies (unless of course, and feel free to, you wish to correct me) that number of wins was in fact the argument made in the AfD linked below and now that Verstappen is third it would in fact qualify him if numbers alone was the argument for notability.

If it is not about wins, then feel free to establish this with an AfD for the remaining lists - however there is currently an AfD that supports the precedent of this type article where you failed to establish this precedent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Ayrton_Senna compared to the discussion about notability on the AfD you did pass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Damon_Hill

Until all remaining lists have been removed via AfD, there is no precedent other than to say a notability requirement exists. Unless you can argue that Verstappen's 60 wins, and the many articles regarding his dominance, are not notable then your previous AfD does not establish anything for this discussion.

As for the remainder, I remind you of the notability metrics for lists as per WP:LISTN:

Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability (my note: this refutes the argument "full lists of wins are rarely discussed in the sources"), only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable (my note again, for Bretonbanquet, this is a reminder that yes if Clark's win as a set were internationally famous and well talked about they would count), the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists.

Final note: I am also going to table an AfD for the remaining articles to settle this, because I think it has come to a point of being beyond silly. 159.242.125.170 (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Update for those interested: The other lists were deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton 159.242.125.170 (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This may be of importance to you: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton 159.242.125.170 (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

When update his photo?

This one is from 2017! 109.38.134.1 (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

If you have a copyright free photo that is more recent, then add it in. Wikipedia does not have any photographers getting paid to take pictures of famous people nor does it own an extensive collection of photographs. --Falcadore (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2024

change: said he "was going to cause a massive accident" to said he was "going to cause a massive accident" -> the reason for that change is that raikonnen did not say was, he said "he is" so it is misquoting to add the "was" into the brackets Grutzeckigor (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2024

I need to add at the end of the page, because the talk section states that Max Verstahhpen is a top importance in Formula One. StickminBruv (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the long reply, but I need to add the [[Category:Top-importance Formula One articles]] to the end of the page. (if I'm correct) StickminBruv (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@StickminBruv: Article importance categories go on the talk page, not the article. This talk page is already in the category (it is added by the WikiProject template); the category doesn't need to be added to the article. DH85868993 (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh okay, my bad. I think I have to request it there, then. StickminBruv (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@StickminBruv: No, you don't need to request it anywhere. This talk page is already in the category. The article doesn't need to put into the category. DH85868993 (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Ohh, I get it now. It's because the people are listed by their last name, not by their first in the Category: thing. StickminBruv (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)