Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

Results matrix templates

I've just put all the infrastructure needed for the upcoming championship at F1 2018. To do this, I needed to copy and paste the matrices from Template:F1 Drivers Standings and Template:F1 Constructors Standings into F1 2017, and then replace the templates with blank matrices that I made a few days ago. This required me to move roughly 45,000kB of data, and since I edit from a mobile device, I barely made it (though I appreciate that desktop users would have a much easier time). Having done this, I am left asking why we bother. The template system is a good system—it prevents drive-by edits designed to vandalise the matrices. But why do we then edit the matrices directly into and article once the year is out and replace the template with a blank one? Surely the most straightforward thing to do would be to create one or two templates for each year. Instead of having Template:F1 Drivers Standings we would use (something like) Template:2017 F1 Drivers Standings and then when the year is done create a new template with blank matrices at (again something like) Template:2018 F1 Drivers Standings. That way, we only ever edit one template and save all the mucking about at the end of the year. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a much much easier way to move the content from the template to the article. Substituting the template.Tvx1 13:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, if we have separate templates for every season, then we would end up with a series of templates, each of which are only transcluded in a single article, which would probably eventually lead to someone nominating them for deletion. The main (only?) justification for the current season tables to be in templates (which are only transcluded in a single article) is to minimize vandalism - previous season's results tables are vandalized at a vastly lower rate than the current season's tables were before we moved to using templates. DH85868993 (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

"Formula One" "Grands Prix"

We have discussed quite a lot about naming conventions in season articles lately. I am surprised to see that apparently no one has ever raised the question if the list List of Formula One Grand Prix winners should get a different name. The Indy 500 winners from 1950 to 1960 are listed here. However, as probably all of you know, the Indy 500 was never a Formula One race and never a Grand Prix. It was simply part of the World Championship for Drivers. My stance on this: Changing the name of the list (which is a featured list no less!) might be too confusing for lesser informed readers. Omitting the Indy winners also seems strange. How about adding information about this in the lead and adding a source? Speaking of sources, how is this a featured list even though practically none of the statistics have a source to go with them? I will try to get to work on that bit asap... Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

We could make the name somewhat more accurate (and not too much longer/more confusing imo) by changing it to "List of Formula One World Championship race winners", where "Formula One World Championship" is shorthand for "the championship which has been called the Formula One World Championship since 1981 but was called the World Championship for Drivers from 1950 to 1980". Whether or not we rename the article, the scope should definitely be identified in the lead. The same issue also applies to numerous other "List of Formula One xxx" articles, although I agree it's more acute for this article due to the inclusion of the words "Grand Prix" in the title. DH85868993 (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I have expanded the lead for now to include some more context. If someone can find a better source for the last claim of the lead, please add it, wtf1.com is certainly not the best of sources... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

British Formula One Series

Back in April 2016, the "19YY British Formula One season" articles were moved to "19YY British Formula One Championship", as part of a general "xxx season" to "xxx Championship" migration. But the main article for the series is still at British Formula One Series. Does anyone have any good evidence that "Series" was part of the official name of the championship? Motor Sport suggests that the overall name of the series was the "(Aurora AFX) British F1 Championship" - see 1978, 1979, 1980, 1982 (and they don't just call everything "Championship" by default - the "Other 1980 Championships" list contains "1980 Campeonato de Espana Turismos Series", for example). In the absence of any good evidence that "Series" was part of the official name, I propose the following renames:

• British Formula One Series --> British Formula One Championship
• Category:British Formula One Series --> Category:British Formula One Championship

Any objections? DH85868993 (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

"Championship" seems to be the best name to use by default since it most accurately reflects the structure of the competition. I've only ever seen "Series" used instead of "Championship" when it is incorporated as part of the competition name, such as 2016 GP2 Series. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, if there are no objections within the next 12 hours, I'll make the moves. (I realise this discussion has only been open for a couple of days and some interested parties may not have seen it, but I think they're fairly uncontroversial moves, and easily undone if someone objects later). DH85868993 (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You do realize that it’s New Year’s eve, don’t you? During the next twelve hours Wikipedia will probably see its lowest activity of the year.Tvx1 15:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did realize it was New Year's Eve. DH85868993 (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The article has been moved. The category has been listed for speedy renaming and should be moved within the next 48 hours or so. DH85868993 (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The category has now also been moved. DH85868993 (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Road cars in Template:McLaren

An editor has questioned whether road cars should be included in Template:McLaren. Interested editors are invited to participate in the existing discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to re-simplify the constructors' standings tables.

The following discussion 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.

---

I would like to propose for us to reinstate the system we used for our constructors' standings tables until 2013. Prior to 2014, our constructors' tables would have two rows per constructors regardless of the amount of drivers they used in a season. Since 2014 however we started giving a row to each driver in the constructors' table as well. The sole explanation I can find for that is that since that year every driver use a different number. But I feel this unnecessarily blows up the constructors' table. And with a team now contracting four different drivers in 2017, it also makes things unnecessarily confusing. Just like before 2014, the constructors can only score two results per race and I think we can show all of that in just two rows. The individual driver results belong in the drivers' table. It doesn't matter to the constructors' championship who scored the points. A win by say Lewis Hamilton has just as much value for Mercedes' constructors points as one by Valtteri Bottas. This is is evidenced by the way the governing body FIA list the standings themselves. To illustrate with an example, I propose that the following table (taking from the 2016) championship be changed from:

Pos.	Constructor	No.	AUS	BHR	CHN	RUS	ESP	MON	CAN	EUR	AUT	GBR	HUN	GER	BEL	ITA	SIN	MAL	JPN	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU	Points
1	Mercedes	6	1	1	1	1	Ret	7	5	1	4	3	2	4	1	1	1	3	1	2	2	2	2	765
		44	2	3	7	2	Ret	1	1	5	1	1	1	1	3	2	3	Ret	3	1	1	1	1
2	Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer	3	4	4	4	11	4	2	7	7	5	4	3	2	2	5	2	1	6	3	3	8	5	468
		26	DNS	7	3	15
		33					1	Ret	4	8	2	2	5	3	11	7	6	2	2	Ret	4	3	4
3	Ferrari	5	3	DNS	2	Ret	3	4	2	2	Ret	9	4	5	6	3	5	Ret	4	4	5	5	3	398
		7	Ret	2	5	3	2	Ret	6	4	3	5	6	6	9	4	4	4	5	Ret	6	Ret	6
4	Force India-Mercedes	11	13	16	11	9	7	3	10	3	17†	6	11	10	5	8	8	6	7	8	10	4	8	173
		27	7	15	15	Ret	Ret	6	8	9	19†	7	10	7	4	10	Ret	8	8	Ret	7	7	7
5	Williams-Mercedes	19	5	8	6	5	8	10	Ret	10	20†	11	18	Ret	10	9	12	13	9	7	9	Ret	9	138
		77	8	9	10	4	5	12	3	6	9	14	9	9	8	6	Ret	5	10	16	8	11	Ret
6	McLaren-Honda	14	Ret		12	6	Ret	5	11	Ret	18†	13	7	12	7	14	7	7	16	5	13	10	10	76
		22	14	Ret	13	10	9	9	Ret	11	6	12	Ret	8	Ret	12	Ret	9	18	9	12	16	Ret
		47		10
7	Toro Rosso-Ferrari	26					10	Ret	12	Ret	Ret	10	16	15	14	Ret	9	14	13	11	18	13	Ret	63
		33	10	6	8	Ret
		55	9	Ret	9	12	6	8	9	Ret	8	8	8	14	Ret	15	14	11	17	6	16	6	Ret
8	Haas-Ferrari	8	6	5	19	8	Ret	13	14	13	7	Ret	14	13	13	11	DNS	Ret	11	10	20	DNS	11	29
		21	Ret	Ret	14	17	11	11	13	16	11	16	13	11	12	13	11	Ret	20	Ret	19	Ret	12
9	Renault	20	12	11	17	7	15	Ret	16	14	14	17†	15	16	Ret	17	10	Ret	14	12	17	14	Ret	8
		30	11	DNS	22	13	13	Ret	Ret	15	12	Ret	12	19	15	Ret	15	10	12	13	14	Ret	17
10	Sauber-Ferrari	9	Ret	12	16	14	12	Ret	15	17	15	Ret	20	18	Ret	16	17	12	15	14	11	Ret	15	2
		12	15	14	20	16	14	Ret	18	12	13	15	17	Ret	17	Ret	13	Ret	19	15	15	9	16
11	MRT-Mercedes	31													16	18	18	16	21	18	21	12	13	1
		88	Ret	17	21	Ret	17	15	19	18	16	Ret	21	20
		94	16	13	18	18	16	14	17	Ret	10	Ret	19	17	Ret	Ret	16	15	22	17	Ret	15	14
Pos.	Constructor	No.	AUS	BHR	CHN	RUS	ESP	MON	CAN	EUR	AUT	GBR	HUN	GER	BEL	ITA	SIN	MAL	JPN	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU	Points
Source:

to:

Pos.	Constructor	No.	AUS	BHR	CHN	RUS	ESP	MON	CAN	EUR	AUT	GBR	HUN	GER	BEL	ITA	SIN	MAL	JPN	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU	Points
1	Mercedes	6	1	1	1	1	Ret	7	5	1	4	3	2	4	1	1	1	3	1	2	2	2	2	765
		44	2	3	7	2	Ret	1	1	5	1	1	1	1	3	2	3	Ret	3	1	1	1	1
2	Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer	3	4	4	4	11	4	2	7	7	5	4	3	2	2	5	2	1	6	3	3	8	5	468
		26/33	DNS	7	3	15	1	Ret	4	8	2	2	5	3	11	7	6	2	2	Ret	4	3	4
3	Ferrari	5	3	DNS	2	Ret	3	4	2	2	Ret	9	4	5	6	3	5	Ret	4	4	5	5	3	398
		7	Ret	2	5	3	2	Ret	6	4	3	5	6	6	9	4	4	4	5	Ret	6	Ret	6
4	Force India-Mercedes	11	13	16	11	9	7	3	10	3	17†	6	11	10	5	8	8	6	7	8	10	4	8	173
		27	7	15	15	Ret	Ret	6	8	9	19†	7	10	7	4	10	Ret	8	8	Ret	7	7	7
5	Williams-Mercedes	19	5	8	6	5	8	10	Ret	10	20†	11	18	Ret	10	9	12	13	9	7	9	Ret	9	138
		77	8	9	10	4	5	12	3	6	9	14	9	9	8	6	Ret	5	10	16	8	11	Ret
6	McLaren-Honda	14/47	Ret	10	12	6	Ret	5	11	Ret	18†	13	7	12	7	14	7	7	16	5	13	10	10	76
		22	14	Ret	13	10	9	9	Ret	11	6	12	Ret	8	Ret	12	Ret	9	18	9	12	16	Ret
7	Toro Rosso-Ferrari	26/33	10	6	8	Ret	10	Ret	12	Ret	Ret	10	16	15	14	Ret	9	14	13	11	18	13	Ret	63
		55	9	Ret	9	12	6	8	9	Ret	8	8	8	14	Ret	15	14	11	17	6	16	6	Ret
8	Haas-Ferrari	8	6	5	19	8	Ret	13	14	13	7	Ret	14	13	13	11	DNS	Ret	11	10	20	DNS	11	29
		21	Ret	Ret	14	17	11	11	13	16	11	16	13	11	12	13	11	Ret	20	Ret	19	Ret	12
9	Renault	20	12	11	17	7	15	Ret	16	14	14	17†	15	16	Ret	17	10	Ret	14	12	17	14	Ret	8
		30	11	DNS	22	13	13	Ret	Ret	15	12	Ret	12	19	15	Ret	15	10	12	13	14	Ret	17
10	Sauber-Ferrari	9	Ret	12	16	14	12	Ret	15	17	15	Ret	20	18	Ret	16	17	12	15	14	11	Ret	15	2
		12	15	14	20	16	14	Ret	18	12	13	15	17	Ret	17	Ret	13	Ret	19	15	15	9	16
11	MRT-Mercedes	31/88	Ret	17	21	Ret	17	15	19	18	16	Ret	21	20	16	18	18	16	21	18	21	12	13	1
		94	16	13	18	18	16	14	17	Ret	10	Ret	19	17	Ret	Ret	16	15	22	17	Ret	15	14
Pos.	Constructor	No.	AUS	BHR	CHN	RUS	ESP	MON	CAN	EUR	AUT	GBR	HUN	GER	BEL	ITA	SIN	MAL	JPN	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU	Points
Source:

Any thoughts?Tvx1 21:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem in the second table is that it's not clear which car scored which results. And I would dispute the idea that it is unnecessarily confusing. It's very clear as to which entry scored which results at which rounds. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

That's the whole point. It doesn't matter for the constructors' table which entry scored which result at which round. There is reason why the FIA does not split them up in their standings. For the exact same reason we did not split the entries prior to 2014 either. As for which car, there are still two rows and the numbers that were used by the particular cars are still appended to that row. And even that information is of low importance. We don't make that distinction in our GP3 Series articles and it works just fine.Tvx1 22:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The GP3 Series uses a different scoring system. Teams may enter four cars, but only the top three can score points. Thus, you can have a team fill out the top four positions, but the team that finished fifth will be classified as finishing fourth.

The other issue you have is that it's still unclear. McLaren had three separate entries in 2016, with Vandoorne completing one race. Under your proposed version, it's not clear how many rounds he entered or which rounds he entered. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the version that we have in the article at the moment is better as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Prisonermokeys, it doesn't matter how many or which rounds Vandoorne entered and how many Alonso entered for the constructors' table. We're discussing the constructors' standings here. Vandoorne's entries are accurately listed in the drivers' standings. Take a look at the 2013 season's article. Lotus' had three distinct entries during that season, yet the constructors' standings do not show us how many races Räikkönen entered and how many Kovalainen entered. And the reason is because it just doesn't matter for that table. We've used that system for all constructors' championships before 2014 (which dates back to 1958) and nobody ever complained about that? So why is suddenly so vital since 2014 to list how many entries each driver made in a constructors' championship table??? Zwerg Nase, why do you think the current version is better? We need more arguments than I like it/I don't like it. I find it weird that you prefer the current version given that you're German and the [Formel-1-Weltmeisterschaft_2016#Konstrukteurswertung German Wiki] uses roughly the version I'm proposing here.Tvx1 09:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I think PM has pointed out all the necessary points, I did not mean to be redundant in writing them down again. Also, the German Wikipedia is of no concern to me, I don't like the way they do things. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

What points by PM do you mean? That the second table does not split up per driver? Something we never did prior to 2014? So you genuinely object because the second table does not list information that does not matter in any way??

Things have changed since 2013. Permanent race numbers give us the chance to tell our readers which driver scored which points. Also, please note, that this way has also been used in older season articles where it can apply. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

But why on earth should we tell our readers which driver scored which points in the constructors' championship?? It doesn't matter in any way whatsoever for the outcome of the constructors' championships. Surely telling which driver scored which points is something for the drivers' championship. And those tables do tell that information. Why is it so vital we do this when even the FIA does not make that split themselves?? In fact, no source whatsoever makes that split, so WHY is so vital we do???Tvx1 10:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"The FIA does it, so we should do it, too" argument holds no water. We, as editors, are free to make decisions as to how to best represent content in the article, even if that diverges from how the FIA represents that content. Case in point, the entry lists published by the FIA list the drivers in no apparent order; Mercedes would list Hamilton (#44) before Rosberg (#6). While this is seemingly alphabetical, Force India would list Pérez (#11) before Hülkenberg (#27), which is apparently numerical. So we devised a system of representing the entry list in a manner that was consistent from team to team, even if it did not perfectly recreate the appearance of the entry list.

Given the size and the complexity of the results matrices, it is in our interests to have as much correlation between the two tables to aid readability. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Correlation is not the same as making an identical copy. And the constructors' table should first and foremost show who won the championship and how. Which exact driver achieved which specific result is of no importance there. No matter what the identity of the driver was the points and positions are equally valid. The correlation is still there in my proposal. The numbers are retained and are still as clickable as before. Moreover, every single result is retained from the drivers' table. They are just not spread beyond multiple rows. It is still beyond me why utterly unimportant information which never included before 2014, the absence of which no-one ever complained about, has suddenly become so vital since 2014. And it's quite amusing that suddenly the "The FIA does it, so we should do it, too" argument is suddenly invalid when I propose something, but at the same time is literally the sole argument you have brought to justify having FIA in our season article names. Regardless I didn't only mention the FIA. I have clearly explained that NO source actually makes this split. We are literally the only one who do so and so far I have not seen any justification to do so.Tvx1 15:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"the constructors' table should first and foremost show who won the championship and how"

It does. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't, it first and foremost show which driver scored which results where (which is actually the duty of the drivers' table). The second does foremost what the constructors' table should do and what it actually did do in our articles before 2014.Tvx1 12:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I like this proposal. Since they introduced the driver numbers I have found the constructors table to be too scattered and unnecessarily difficult to read. This proposal irons out the problem. If you want to know which individual driver scored the points, then there is a drivers table that has otherwise exactly the same information on it, and I found no problem doing this before 2014. I would suggest (although MOS:SLASH is unclear) having spaces between the numbers and the slash, so "26 / 33" rather than "26/33", but it's quite a minor thing. Sr88, talk. 19:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy to see that I'm not the only one to find our current constructors' tables unnecessarily difficult to read.Tvx1 00:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I see a problem. If we will use proposed format on table where the team will have three driver changes per one car than the number column will be unnecessary wide. Probably we will see second Toro Rosso with 55/39/10. IMHO, numbers should be removed from constructors'standings table at all. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Funnily enough I was just about to suggest the same thing, there isn't really a great need for numbers, in fact, a lot of the team's results pages don't feature car numbers. Sr88, talk. 10:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

How, exactly, are you going to organise this format? The matrix is quite complex—there are over two hundred individual cells for results, and that's before you take into account the colour-coding, the cross-referencing with the table outlining the points and the way the FIA regards the team that wins the race to be the winning constructor rather than the team that scores the most points. If nothing else, the number column introduces a logical order to the matrix, which leads me to conclude that this proposal is motivated by editors not liking the abundance of empty squares in the 2017 WCC matrix, which is an issue limited to the 2017 matrix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

It is one of logical orders. If we drop number column we can use the first line for the highest finishing positions and the second line for the lower results like in 2017 Eurocup Formula Renault 2.0. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, good. You fixed one problem. What would you do in the case of 2011, where Sauber entered three cars for one race? Pérez was concussed after his Monaco accident, and took part in FP1 in Montreal, but withdrew because he was feeling ill. Sauber entered de la Rosa alongside Kobayashi. Do you just omit Pérez from that matrix? You cannot do that because the team and driver table is for races entered, not races completed. Thus, if a driver entered a race, they contributed to a team's WCC campaign, even if—as in the case of Pérez in Montreal in 2011, Wehrlein in Melbourne this year and Massa in Hungary this year—they only took part in a single session. The entire justification for changing the table is to simplify it, but doing so disregards a long-standing consensus that is largely regarded as inviolate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you even bother to look at the 2011 article before posting this? If you had, you would see that that article already incorporates a solution since back then our WCC tables never split up per drivers in the first place. Sauber never entered three cars for that weekend. They entered two car #16 and car #17. They just switched the drivers for one car later on. While occasionally team can enter more than two drivers during a weekend, the FIA never credits more than two cars with a result for the WCC. Pérez's result belongs in the WDC table.Tvx1 11:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Except now we're in a position where we treat them as separate entries in the driver table, even if it's an unintended consequence of the numbering system. Once again, this whole proposal is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It causes more problems than it solves. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

As correctly noticed Tvx1, Perez is already omitted from the constructors' standings matrix and it will be fine for both Wehrlein & Massa. We don't have to cover all of the entered drivers in the constructors' standings, as it is not the purpose of the table and their withdrawal doesn't count to constructors' championship. We need to cover how the constructors got their place in the standings and amount of points. Easy. P.S. It is no a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as we can use suggested 2017 Eurocup Formula Renault 2.0-like system which you prefer to ignore. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely WP:IDONTLIKEIT because the only thing the proposal is trying to "fix" is the abundance of white spaces in the table. There is nothing that the proposed version does that the current version does not already do. Arguably it makes things more confusing because it's a solution in search of a problem. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

How on earth is say the 2011 version more problematic than what we use now? It‘s no merely a case of “fixing an abudant amount of white space”. It’s a proposal to remove an unnecessary overcomplication which we created without any good reason or justification in the WCC tables in 2015. You’re the only one using WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments here. So far, you have not presented any coherent argument as to why it has suddenly become vital in 2015 to list which driver scored which points in the WCC tables.Tvx1 01:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I also like the proposal. I would prefer to retain the "car numbers" column simply for the ease of reference & jumping back to the WDC table. cherkash (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cherkash — if you keep the column but cut the white space, it's confusing as to which car scored which result(s) for the team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not: the "car numbers" column would allow one to easily jump to the WDC table and find out. cherkash (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Or, instead of relying on the reader to follow the link in order to make that distinction, you could make it explicit by leaving the empty spaces in the matrix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Or you could finally accept that it just doesn’t matter to the WCC which driver scores which points. Most of the people in this discussion have replied that the propsal is better. As to which car scored the point, that would still be there as each team will retain two rows and the numbers are still attributed to the specific rows.Tvx1 12:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

And now we have a situation were the same number was actually used by different cars of one team in one season. This shows even more how senseless it is to split WCC results solely based on numbers.Tvx1 18:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Only if you're making a physical distinction between the cars and suggesting that the result achieved in the second car #26 would not have been achieved had the driver been in the first car #26. It's a distinction without a difference.

If you're so concerned with fixing the issues with the matrix, why aren't you looking at the other problems? For one, it lists the pole-sitter and the car that achieved the fastest lap, neither of which contribute to the WCC. Secondly, it lists the result achieved by each entry, but the WCC is based on the points score—wouldn't the matrix be better-served listing the points scored? After all, you're assuming that the reader knows the points value of each position (or is willing to scroll back up to the points overview) and you're asking them to take it on faith that everything adds up correctly. Something like this is what I am envisioning:

Pos.	Constructor	No.	AUS	BHR	Points
1	Mercedes	6	25	25	83
		44	18	15
Pos.	Constructor	No.	AUS	BHR	Points

This is much more user-friendly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No it's not a distinction without a difference. Different cars have different power unit quota. So yes, different results could be achieved depending on which car carries the #26. Anyway, I like your proposal, but I will note that results do matter to the WCC as well. In case of tie on points, the exact number of times a certain position is achieved determines the outcome.Tvx1 15:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

That's pure speculation. You have no way of knowing how Kvyat's results would have been affected by driving the other car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, if taking a penalty meant that different results were achieved than if there was no penalty, then surely a mid-season driver change would affect the team's potential to get a result. After all, Toro Rosso replaced the established Kvyat with the rookie Gasly in Malaysia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The obvious idea to me is to have the top row for the team's official number 1 car (always distinguished by the black T-cam and, if I'm not mistaken, being on the right hand side of the garage), and the team's official number 2 car (distinguished by the yellow T-cam), as classified by the FIA. For example, from this:

Pos.	Constructor	No.	AUS	CHN	BHR	RUS	ESP	MON	CAN	AZE	AUT	GBR	HUN	BEL	ITA	SIN	MAL	JPN	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU	Points
6	Toro Rosso	10															14	13					53
		26	9	Ret	12	12	9	14†	Ret	Ret	16	15	11	12	12	Ret			10
		39																	13
		55	8	7	Ret	10	7	6	Ret	8	Ret	Ret	7	10	14	4	Ret	Ret

To this:

Pos.	Constructor	AUS	CHN	BHR	RUS	ESP	MON	CAN	AZE	AUT	GBR	HUN	BEL	ITA	SIN	MAL	JPN	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU	Points
6	Toro Rosso	8	7	Ret	10	7	6	Ret	8	Ret	Ret	7	10	14	4	Ret	Ret	10				53
		9	Ret	12	12	9	14†	Ret	Ret	16	15	11	12	12	Ret	14	13	13

Sr88, talk. 22:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

We've always tended to shy away from emphasising the T-cam colours. While it is an "official" designation, a lot of teams tend to treat both cars equally, so emphasising the T-cam colours has led to concerns that we over-state or misrepresent a team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Sr88, it doesn't really matter which car scored which results. They are all equally valid. Thus it would be much simpler to simply list their best result in the first row and their other result in the second row per race. Like this:

Pos.	Constructor	AUS	CHN	BHR	RUS	ESP	MON	CAN	AZE	AUT	GBR	HUN	BEL	ITA	SIN	MAL	JPN	USA	MEX	BRA	ABU	Points
6	Toro Rosso	8	7	12	10	7	6	Ret	8	16	15	7	10	12	4	14	13	10				53
		9	Ret	Ret	12	9	14†	Ret	Ret	Ret	Ret	11	12	14	Ret	Ret	Ret	13

Tvx1 00:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Or you could stop looking for a problem to fit your solution and leave it as it is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems that you are the only one here who rooting for the pointless number column which makes wide table even more wider. Which driver scored certain result doesn't matter much to the general purpose of the table. Last Tvx1 proposal will be a great solution. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Except that, as pointed out, a driver change has the potential to affect a team's championship campaign. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any point in your last comment Prisonermonkeys: we are talking about the results (i.e., what happened), and not about any interpretation on what might have happened under different circumstances, etc. So would you care to explain what you meant? cherkash (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Still assuming bad faith, eh? I'm not looking for a problem for my solution. There is a problem and I have started a discussion to solve that problem. During that discussion multiple users have acknowledged that the problem does exist and a solution would be welcome. So it would most respectful now if you'd stop accusing other of bad faith and if you'd start collaborating to find a solution instead of behaving like you're the one who decides what happens and what not.Tvx1 16:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I have already found a solution: doing nothing. The problem is overstated. And you still haven't addressed my point that a mid-season driver change has the potential to alter a team's championship. Your solution removes the visual representation of that change. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Prior to 2014 we also haven't a visual representation of the driver change. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Given that multiple contributors agree with me, the problem isn't overstated at all. As for your second point. The current table does not give a visual representation of the potential of a driver change to alter the WCC. It's shows one took place, but that really belongs in other tables, not how it was different than had the original driver kept driving the car. The table should focus on what happened, not what might have happened. The only important information is which result they achieved at each race (not who scored those results for them) and in which position they finished the championship.Tvx1 13:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. The discussion on "what might have happened" sounds like a red herring to me. It has absolutely no bearing on what this table does and/or is intended to represent: what actually happened in the WCC, without any speculation or consideration of what might have been.

I actually like the simple format of having two lines per team, with the two cars' results sorted in the order of their finishing positions. Coincidentally, this is the format FIA uses in their official "Constructors' Championship" sheets they publish after every GP. And although I don't want to use this as an argument to support our choice (I personally don't like argument of the type "the FIA does it this way"), it seems streamlined and logical to me, and so I think it's a good way for us to present the material in this table as well. cherkash (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I never intended to use the FIA as an argument either. I just mentioned it as an indication as to how important the real world considers the information who scored which points for the WCC. The only other source I have found that has a complete WCC matrix doesn't split for all the drivers either.Tvx1 15:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

And now we have a situation were the same driver actually used different numbers during a season. This would essentially mean that in the current system we would end up making a split solely on numbers and not merely the drivers. That to me is just a pointless overcomplication to include information which is trivial to the WCC.Tvx1 20:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

In this isolated incident, yes. But I don't think we can disregard the effect that a driver change has on a team. Especially when we take the trouble to detail the changes in the entry table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

But the effect of a driver changes isn't shown in any way in the WCC be with or without the split on numbers. The WCC just lists bare results. And it isn't an effect you can quantify. There is absolutely no way to tell whether a team would have achieved better results had they not have to change drivers. It's pretty lame excuse to block a change of the WCC table. Any information on driver changes should be in the prose not in the WCC table.Tvx1 13:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I would dispute that entirely. Renault replaced Palmer with Sainz in Austin; Sainz finished seventh, for which he scored six points and Renault passed Haas in the WCC standings. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

So yes, this is what happened. No one contests this. How is this related to the actual changes to the format of the table that are proposed here? cherkash (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Because the matrix is a visual representation of a team's championship campaign. A driver change fundamentally affects that. When Sainz replaced Palmer, he immediately scored enough points to see the team pass Haas in the WCC standings. If the table is limited to two rows, the driver change is unclear and thus its effect on the team's WCC campaign is lost. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

No, that is a completely wrong synthesis by you. You are concluding that certain events result from one change only, when there is actually no way to know that. You have not demonstrated in any way that it was merely the driver change which allowed the team to score those points and not, for instance, the events in the race. How on earth do you now for certain that they would not have been able to score those points if Palmer had still been in the car? It's simple you don't. The WCC does not in any way give a visual representation of "a potential to score better results through a driver change". The impact you keep referring to is purely hypothetical. We just don't know whether the team would have scored worse results if they hadn't changed driver. And it's not the WCC matrix' duty to provide hypothetical information. If you want to discuss Sainz' performance with Renault, that should be done in the prose. Right now it's dead obvious that you are literally the only person considering this split to be vital. You are really clutching a straws to prevent this change and I think it's high time for you to acknowledge the real world's view on this information.Tvx1 12:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Well said, Tvx1. cherkash (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

And you would be the "real world"? You, who selectively applies his own arguments? You, who ignores sources that are inconvenient when they are pointed out to you? You, who goes out if his way to shut discussions down? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Pot, black, kettle...Tvx1 12:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1, it seems your proposal has received sufficient support, is logical, and (also importantly) the single opposing opinion is relying on synthesis which is not really supported by sources. Would you care to go ahead and start implementing it? cherkash (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with that.Tvx1 21:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Aye, no point dragging another discussion out. Consensus is with the change. QueenCake (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I know I am late to this discussion, but I also support Tvx1's proposal. It is clear from reading through this discussion that this is the consensus, so may I ask why this change hasn't yet been implemented on the 2017 F1 article? Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipediaeditperson Doesn't happen magically - someone will have to do it.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Galobtter, I understand that. My point was that there were several editors who have taken the time to support this idea, and yet none of these editors have made changes to the current articles. I was merely interested to know whether;

a) There was some other reason why we cannot yet make these edits, and if not;

b) Will this be the favoured approach for future articles.

Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipediaeditperson Tvx1 appeared to be waiting for a close on WP:ANRFC - I pinged him saying that he could do it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I give it about six months before we're reverting the changes. After all, nobody has addressed the problem with rearranging the matrix. Tvx1's proposal orders the results based on the best result first for each round. So if Car A finishes 7th and Car B 8th in round one, Car A's result is listed first for round one. But if Car A finishes 9th in round two and Car B is 6th, Car B's result is listed first. So the top row for the team will be 7th and then 6th, while the bottom row will be 8th and then 9th when the actual results were 7th and 9th and then 8th and 6th.

The problem is that the WCC matrix is constructed exactly the same as the WDC matrix, but in Tvx1's proposal the implication is that the WCC is scored differently to the WDC when it is not. The advantage of keeping the car number column is that it clearly indicates which car scored which results and it keeps the two matrices consistent. As Tvx1 said in his very opening comments, 2017 saw a team contract four different drivers, which makes it "unnecessarily confusing". However, this completely contradicts his argument at a long-running debate on the 2017 talk page. When Kvyat rejoined Toro Rosso halfway through 2017, he did not drive his original car; he drove Carlos Sainz Jr's car as he inherited Sainz Jr's engine allocation.

The rules clearly separate the cars into two distinct entities so at the very least, the results matrix should, too, lest we contradict other parts of the article and imply the WCC is scored differently. I'm betting none of this came up at ANFRC. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

None of what you complain about affects the WCC. The discussion on the 2017 talk page deals with drivers, not constructors. Multiple users have explained you countless of times that it just doesn’t matter to the WCC which driver scored which exact result. The issue was more than adressed, you just don’t want to accept it. Also both championships ARE scored seperately (e.g. in 2007 McLaren did not receice any WCC points in Hungary, while their drivers did for the WDC and 1997 Michael Schumacher’s results only counted towards the WCC). Lastly, WP:AN/RFC is not a venue for discussion but merely for posting a neutral request to close a discussion.Tvx1 02:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say "separately". I said "differently". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Really? You’re going to reduce this to semantics now? I can do even better then. You didn’t say anything, because we didn’t speak with each other. You only typed some words. Anyway, name it what you like the championships are not scored in the same way (save for the points allocation for the positions). In the WDC, every entrant gets one result per race and a total of all those results is made at the end of the season. In the WCC, each entrant gets two results per race with a total of all those pairs of results is made at the end of the season. Moreover during the sport’s history there have been seasons where not all the race results counted towards the championship. And as I explained before, there have been cases of certain results not counting towards the WDC or the WCC.Tvx1 02:08, 30 December 2017 (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.

Renault and Toro Rosso

Hi,

While I can understand it, I don't agree with the fact that Renault didn't supply Toro Rosso with engines in 2017 as it is listed here: Renault Grand Prix results#As an engine supplier. If one search on the official Toro Rosso website here: (https://scuderiatororosso.redbull.com/en_INT/car/str12) where we can still find infos on the 2017 season and the STR12, it is clearly stated that they had a 2017 spec Renault engine, it was not rebadged as "Toro Rosso". I would suggest adding the 2017 Toro Rosso season as a supplied Renault team on the page I listed above, which is the page of Renault as an engine supplier. Regards. RafaelS1979 (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Since nobody is answering me, I'm planning to proceed to adding the results of Toro Rosso here: Renault Grand Prix results#As an engine supplier for the 2017 season. Regards. RafaelS1979 (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The Renault name did not appear with Toro Rosso on the entry lists[1][2][3]. They were simply listed as Toro Rosso, meaning that similarly as to Ferrari and Mercedes the constructor and engine names were the same.vx1 17:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

FIA have made mistake in the past, the best source is Toro Rosso official website. I think they know what is going on in their team. I'm sorry but I won't back down on this one because it's simply untrue to say the engine was rebadged. RafaelS1979 (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

On the french and italian wikipedia Toro Rosso is listed has having a Renault engine, but it seems that on the english wikipedia people have decided that the engine was rebadged, which is NOT TRUE. They intended at the beginning of last season to rebadge it, but they didn't go on with it. RafaelS1979 (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Can a third-party intervene in the debate because Tvx1 and I won't come to any settlement. RafaelS1979 (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

No you think it isn't true, but you are wrong. The FIA entry lists are very clear. These entry lists are verified and signed off by multiple people. The Toro Rosso website is just made by one person and is much more susceptible to mistakes.Tvx1 19:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You have reverted four times in a 24 hrs period and you know what it means. I'm reporting you and I'll revert to what is written on the Toro Rosso website. If you want to settle another way just say how, because you have breached a clear rule of wikipedia. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toro_Rosso_Grand_Prix_results&action=history. I'll wait for your reply before doing any action but if we can't find a solution, I'll have to go on with the report. RafaelS1979 (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with @Tvx1 — the entry list says "Toro Rosso", not "Toro Rosso-Renault". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: On neither of the entry lists you have submitted the engine is listed as "Toro Rosso". At best we see "TBC" and blank spaces which doesn't imply that the Renault engine was rebadged as "Toro Rosso". To be honest it means nothing. RafaelS1979 (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

If the name appears as Toro Rosso with a blank space alongside, that means the engine name is Toro Rosso. You don't see "Mercedes-Mercedes", "Ferrari-Ferrari" or "Renault-Renault" on the entry lists; you see "Mercedes", "Ferrari" and "Renault". Why do you treat Toro Rosso diffetently? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Look at the individual races' entry lists as well please. If a team is listed race after race without a separate engine name called "Renault" by the sports governing body, you can be certain that the team did not register it as a Renault and thus it wasn't raced as one. The team's own site doesn't change that a bit. You've made an assumption and it's a wrong one.Tvx1 23:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: Because Mercedes and Ferrari build their own engine which is not the case for Toro Rosso. I stand with Toro Rosso being the best source for the engine they had in their car. Go see on various languages of wikipedia and the english one is the only one with that Toro Rosso engine rebadging nonsense. We'll have to settle for something because I don't agree with the Toro Rosso rebadging. It's untrue and misleading for the casual fan of F1. RafaelS1979 (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who built the engine. After all, Red Bull compete as "Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer", even though TAG Heuer did not build the engine. You apparently have no issue with this even though you object to Toro Rosso's situation. The FIA credited the team's results to "Toro Rosso", not "Toro Rosso-Renault".

Nor does it matter what editors outside the English-language Wikipedia do. They are no different to us, making decisions about how best to represent their content based on the sources available. As Wikipedia is not a source itself, we are obligated to base our decisions on what the sources say. The FIA is universally regarded as being the authority on the subject and so they supersede any other source. You claim that the FIA has made errors on entry lists in the past, but please show us examples that would give us reason to doubt that the entry lists produced for every Grand Prix are incorrect. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That's why we have the footnote. You don't get to set the conditions for what happens here. We have no obligation to you whatsoever.Tvx1 01:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

And you don't get to set the conditions neither even if you have a hard time to make do with a point of view that differs from your own Tvx1. I have no obligation to you in any form or way. I won't go further because it's pointless in my honest opinion. RafaelS1979 (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is imposing any conditions on anybody else here. The only requirement that we must observe is the need for a consensus. Based on the evidence presented, the consensus is that the constructor name is "Toro Rosso", as opposed to "Toro Rosso-Renault". If anybody disagrees with that, then they are free to state their case and attempt to attain a new consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I was rude in my way of bringing forth te d I know that nobody owe me anything, but for me it's just not right to name the engine Toro Rosso, but I'll make do with it. RafaelS1979 (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I seem to recall that at the beginning of last season, Toro Rosso actually gave the engine name on their website for the car as "Toro Rosso". I also seem to recall that I originally gave that site as a source for that information, but this appears to since have been deleted from the article... Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Graham Hill's plane crash

Bit of an unwieldy title, but 1975 Grand Prix (Bahamas) Ltd Piper PA-23 Aztec crash has been created. Members of this WP may be able to expand the aftermath section. I understand that the crash cost Bette Hill not just her husband, but a considerable amount of money due to licencing irregularities with Hill and the aircraft being unregistered and stateless and therefore uninsured. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI, the article has been renamed to Graham Hill plane crash, but it has subsequently been proposed that the article be renamed to 1975 Arkley Piper PA-23 Aztec crash. Interested editors are welcome to comment at Talk:Graham_Hill_plane_crash#Requested move 22 January 2018. DH85868993 (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion was closed as "not moved". DH85868993 (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The article has also been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are welcome to comment at the deletion discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion was closed as "keep". DH85868993 (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Drivers tables in team/constructor articles

I notice the recent addition of a "Drivers" table at Haas_F1_Team#Drivers, similar to the one at Scuderia_Toro_Rosso#Drivers. Do we think these tables are desirable/necessary? DH85868993 (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

No. We’re not a stats site.Tvx1 16:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It's redundant either way. There's already a list of drivers in the results section. QueenCake (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

1974 British Grand Prix / Guy Edwards

A discussion is in progress at Talk:1974_British_Grand_Prix#Guy_Edwards regarding how Edwards' participation in the 1974 British Grand Prix meeting should be recorded. Interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Historic F1

Some articles have been created on seasons of historic formula one racing (e.g. this and this). Are these really worth keeping. I'm not convinced they meet the policies and guidelines.Tvx1 19:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced edits

Could everyone please keep an eye on the 2018 car articles? An editor has been going around adding unsourced content—usually related to fuel suppliers—despite multiple messages advising him of the need to source his content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

GA review.

2016 FIA Formula One World Championship is currently undergoing GA review. An help to get this to be passed is welcome.Tvx1 23:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

1982 FIA Formula One World Championship

Hey everybody. I have spent the last couple of weeks working on the 1982 season article. The lead and some cleanup in the footnotes are still open, but other than that, I have worked through the prose and the sourcing. If anyone of you had the time to look over the article, that would be very much appreciated. My goal is to bring it to GA and ultimately FA status. My biggest concern is the "Background" section, which I think might not be comprehensible enough for laypeople. What do you think? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I have had a look at the background section and I think it's comprehensible for the most part. The technology section might not comprehensible enough for laypeople, but I think it's nearly impossible to make it more understandable for people who don't know much or anything about the technical side of Formula 1. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced changes

An editor [4] is making unsourced changes to Formula One artcles. Any substance to them? Britmax (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Check the entry list on the 2018 season article. Just because RBR have a title sponsor this season doesn't mean it needs referencing on every article it is mentioned. Bbb2007 (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if you explained your changes, using edit summaries. Britmax (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing redundant columns

This one has been bothering me for a while now: I think the team and driver tables are full of redundant columns—namely the entrant column. This is taken from the 2018 article:

Entrant	Constructor	Chassis	Power unit	Tyres	Race drivers
					No.	Driver name
Scuderia Ferrari	Ferrari	SF71H	Ferrari 063	P	5	Sebastian Vettel
					7	Kimi Räikkönen

But my question is what does the entrant column actually add? I have gone back as far as 1980 and in the vast majority of cases, the entrant and constructor are one and the same. This has been written into the rules for quite some time. In the few exceptions, such as Midland/Spyker in 2006, they nevertheless retained the constructor name. So what does the above table do that this version does not?

Constructor	Chassis	Power unit	Tyres	Race drivers
				No.	Driver name
Ferrari	SF71H	Ferrari 063	P	5	Sebastian Vettel
				7	Kimi Räikkönen

As far as I can tell, all it really does is name the sponsor (when there is a sponsor to be named). In this era of commercial partnerships with car manufacturers—such as Aston Martin Red Bull Racing and Alfa Romeo Sauber F1 Team—it implies a relationship that is not neccessarily there, especially since the articles do not cover sponsorship changes. Furthermore, the constructor name is the common name, so I cannot see why the entrant name is needed. It appears that they have been carried over from articles where many entrants could use the same chassis and remain in place for the sake of maintaining continuity between articles—but as has been demonstrated by the shift from "19XX/20XX Formula One season" to "19XX/20XX FIA Formula One World Championship", we can have two separate styles without being disruptive.

So here is what I am proposing: that we remove the "entrant" column from championship articles when the entrant and the constructor are one and the same. Because if you had to break it down, only the constructor, chassis, power unit and race driver columns are absolutely needed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

... Anyone? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If we keeping even tyre column section for the sake of consistency, how we can have some articles with entrant column and some articles without?.. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If we're only doing things for the sake of consistency, then we're doing things for the wrong reasons. We should make decisions based on the needs of the article first and if those decisions happen to create consistency, great—but if not, we shouldn't sacrifice the integrity of the article for the sake of consistency.

Ultimately, it boils down to this: for some time now, the entrant and the constructor have been one and the same. That makes one of the columns redundant and if the only reason to keep both is to create consistency with other articles, then I think that creates a greater need to remove one of them.

(As for the tyres, I see no reason to keep the column for years with a single tyre supplier. A line of prose explaining the control tyre works just fine in Formula 2 articles, so I see no reason why it cannot work in Formula 1 articles. But I don't want to get distracted by this issue.) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I really don't see how having this column "sacrifices the integrity of the article".Tvx1 15:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Because it's promoting the addition of redundant content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

How does that sacrifice integrity?Tvx1 02:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Because if there's one redundant column, why not include other content that "might be useful"? But please, answer my original question: what purpose does the entrant column serve when the entrant and the column are one and the same? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I really think you do not understand what "article integrity" means. Moreover I don't think these columns are redundant at all even now that the entrants are always consider the constructors of the cars. The constructor name doesn't always contain a meaningful part of the entrant's name. There a clear cases like HRT or MRT or ,in 2011, Lotus were our reader would be left without a meaningful name of the team. In a case like this year it would remove interesting information like the presence of Aston Martin and Alfa Romeo. We don't need to reinvent these tables every season.Tvx1 12:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting does not mean relevant. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I can’t see why it wouldn‘t be relevant.Tvx1 21:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Because they're sponsors. Their involvement with the team is limited to decals on the cars. They don't own, operate or influence the entries in any way. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The main source of income for F1 teams for the last 45-50 years does not influence in the entries in any way?! -- Pc13 (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about the prize money or the cut of the television revenues? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

No, sponsorship.Tvx1 02:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The prize money and cut of TV revenues is worth more than sponsorship. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any proof of that?Tvx1 14:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you provide the proof I asked for two days ago first? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. You are minimizing this way to much. It's more than just decoration of the cars. Without the Alfo Romeo deal, Sauber would simply not be competing in 2018.Tvx1 16:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any proof of that? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The Renault R31 competed under the team name Lotus Renault. Removing the "Entrant" column would mean that the table would not mention Lotus at all, which I think is wrong. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree, the same issue with Manor Marussia F1 Team in 2015. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It's even worse in 2016 when their constructor name was simply "MRT". Removing that column would leave our readers without any proper name of that team. Same thing with Hispania Racing team from 2010 until 2012.Tvx1 21:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I would keep the "entrant" column as it is clearly not redundant per all the reasons given above but I would remove the long-time redundant "tyre" column as it adds no value whatsoever. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That was thoroughly discussed and no consensus was achieved to remove it.Tvx1 03:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Porsche cars results

The Porsche cars do not have a results table in Formula One. --Adriel 00 (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Adriel 00: Please see Porsche Grand Prix results. Eagleash (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean the articles of the cars. I think the rest of the cars that participated, or most, if they have one. These why not? --Adriel 00 (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

There's no real reason why they should not have one (other than the cars may not be considered particulary significant in the history of F1). You are welcome to add them if you so wish. Eagleash (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Mark Webber

Hi. Would anyone from this project be interested in looking at Mark Webber. It is a Good Article which has some orange level tags on it. AIRcorn (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The Renault in Formula One article

Why the hell has the Renault article been butchered for, what the heck was wrong with it in the first place that it needed changing? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you characterised the addition, rather than the subsequent deletion, of four useful infoboxes as butchery. There is a discussion taking place on the article's talkpage about the article contents and what is currently wrong with it. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

How repetitive infoboxes with made-up stats are "useful"? As I already said in the article's talk page, the improvements that the Renault in Formula One actually need are a more professional-style writing and more sources, not more infoboxes. In fact, most "Something in Formula One" infoboxes are covering constructors, with at least two different "eras" for most of them, and no-one seems to have a problem with that. "Team Enstone exceptionalism" hasn't grips on reality. As you said in your edit summaries in the article, there're no published stats for the individual "teams" covered in the article, so we need to actually engage in WP:OR to came with some form of them. If the change is really a neccessity, it should be implemented in all similar artices (Honda in Formula One, Mercedes-Benz in Formula One, Alfa Romeo in Formula one and so on). To be clear, I think it isn't. --Urbanoc (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This is confusing - can we keep all the discussion about mods to that specific article on its talkpage please? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Speedy Question Mark —

"Why the hell has the Renault article been butchered for, what the heck was wrong with it in the first place that it needed changing?"

It was little more than fancruft. Whoever has been working on it seems to have been under the assumption that everything even remotely connected to the team needed to be included. The end result is a bloated, poorly-written mess. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: I'm not sure which content you are referring to - can you give us a diff please, because I had assumed that Speedy Question Mark was complaining about my addition of a team infobox for each team covered by the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Halo article

I'm thinking of creating an article on the halo (similar to Drag Reduction System) since it's not just for Formula 1 anymore—Formula 2, Formula 3 and Formula E are all using it, Indycar is developing their own version, and the FIA wants all single-seater series to adopt it by 2020. It's a little awkward to link those series to the 2018 Formula 1 article for an explanation. I'm just having a little trouble settling on a name for the article since most sources simply refer to it as the halo. I think "Halo cockpit protection device" is probably the best fit, but I'm wondering if there are other possible suggestions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Use the nale that the FIA uses in the regulations.Tvx1 07:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Use the common name, i.e. "halo", and disambiguate it, e.g. "Halo (motor racing)". But whatever name is chosen, use the current article "Halo (safety device)" and, if necessary, rename it later. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

In the Spanish version already exists: Halo (automovilismo) (in English it would be Halo (motorsport)). --Adriel 00 (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed new fields for Template:Infobox motorsport venue

I've started a discussion regarding whether it would be worthwhile adding "Outright lap record" fields to Template:Infobox motorsport venue. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that treads dangerously close to original research. Most categories only recognise lap times set under race conditions as the records. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Formula One proposed for deletion

FYI, it has been proposed that all Portals (including Portal:Formula One) be deleted. Interested editors are invited to comment at the RfC. DH85868993 (talk) 10:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Good luck to whoever gets tasked with closing that discussion.Tvx1 16:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes for each team in multi-team articles

I have come across an annoying integrity problem in the Renault in Formula One article which I would like to find an elegant solution to. I found the article to be unusable when trying to follow the "next name"/"previous name" chains starting from the infobox in Benetton Formula. The Benetton article took me to the top of the Renault article, but the "previous name" link from there took me, not back to the Benetton article, but to the Lotus F1 article! So I re-pointed the Benetton link to go to the appropriate team section in the Renault article, but then there is no infobox there - so no "next name"/"previous name" buttons to click. I then put new team infoboxes in each team section, which worked beautifully. However, my efforts were very quickly and ruthlessly reverted as 'All "xxx in Formula One" articles as one infobox for the constructor, not the teams" by one editor and characterised as butchery by another.

So I have come here to see if we can dream-up a solution that will: a) make these types of article usable for readers who are interested in following the history of teams as they pass from one owner to another, b) continue to group different teams by constructor name (as we have for Renault and Mercedes now).

What I think we need is an infobox at the start of each separate team section in these type of articles so that we can, at least, have somewhere to put the "next name"/"previous name" buttons to allow the chains to be logical and unbroken. If we do add an infobox, we could add other interesting info to it too, and even save reinventing the wheel and maintain article consistency by using the existing Template:Infobox former F1 team or Template:Infobox F1 team (as appropriate). -- DeFacto (talk). 22:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

As I'm the editor that "very quickly and ruthlessly reverted", I'll kick this up. I'd say I had my arguments to do it, even if DeFacto disagrees with them. For not repeating myself immediataly, see this long discussion between us to know the reasons I'm opposed to his changes. --Urbanoc (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Urbanoc: those arguments though (as I said there) are not against solving the usability/integrity problem I described above, they are more about the legitimacy of certain stats which might (or might not) be added as bonus ancillary data at the same time. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

They're against both, actually (see my first answer to you in the discussion). I think you already resolved the alleged problem by adding a section link (see my second answer). But I'm more strongly opposed to the separated stats, that's true. In any case, my arguments are there, if someone wants to know them. --Urbanoc (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Urbanoc: no, the section link does not solve the problem, it just corrects the "next name" step from the Benetton Formula article. There is still no way to get to the next team or even correctly back to the Benetton article - that is the main usability problem that I am trying to get a solution to. The chain we need to be able to follow (both ways) is Benetton Formula <-> Renault F1 Team <-> Lotus Renault GP <-> Renault Sport Formula One Team. We still only have one way along the first link of the three currently available. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, it does. The Benetton article is linked through the "Renault in Formula One" article. That's the point of internal links, they're there to link related topics. We just don't need infoboxes everywhere to replace/duplicate them. --Urbanoc (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

How 'bout we just remove the confusing next name/previous name parameters from the inboxes. They seem to be the source of all the confusion. And they are in contradiction of our convention to have these articles deal with constructors, not entrant. Renault Sport F1 team is not the next name of the constructor Lotus and Lotus F1 team is not the previous name of the constructor Renault. They are separate, independent entities and if our readers reading these article want to find out more about the extended history they already can using the wikilinks in the prose.Tvx1 00:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That was my understanding from past discussions, that, for most articles on F1 racing entities, the primary topic was the constructor, not the team(s). And, as a general rule (although there're exceptions on consensus), the infobox in those articles is supposed to primarly cover constructors, not teams, especially on stats. If I'm correct, that was the reason we separated "Lotus Renault GP" from "Lotus F1" and combined the old and new Mercedes, all the Hondas, the Alfa Romeos, and so on.

I agree with you, the "previous name"/"Next name" thing is quite misleading and without purpose. When one says "previous" name, what's talking about? The constructor? The team? Both? None of those? We have an article saying a constructor established in 1954 was preceded by an entity supposedly established in 2009, things like that. I think that attempt of condensing information isn't working. It isn't neither replacing the article text nor saying too much. So, I personally agree. Delete those parameters. --Urbanoc (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I agree that if these articles are to be solely, even mainly, about constructors - and not teams - that the "previous name"/"next name" parameters would become redundant. However, as much of the current content of these article is about the team rather than the constructor then the team navigation params would seem to be a necessity.

Looking specifically at the Renault in Formula One article, we see that the current team name is in bold on the first line, that the lead concentrates mainly on the teams involved in Renault's history and their previous incarnations, and that most of the rest of the article is based on team-centric sections. Then there is the top infobox, which is the "Infobox F1 team" - many/most of the paramaters of which relate mainly to team attributes: long_name, logo, base, principal, director, website, (previous_name, next_name), ...drivers, ...test drivers, drivers_champ. So we see that there are a lot of other parameters that will need removing too, if only for the sake of consistency and integrity, if we are to rectify the "contradiction of our convention to have these articles deal with constructors, not entrant" that you mentioned.

I support converting these articles to be constructor-centric with the proviso that all non-constructor specific parameters (not just the previous/next params) are removed from the infobox and that the team-specific prose and table columns be reduced to the bare minimum. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Your argument is interesting, but it has some reductionist falacies. Firstly, it implies primary topic means removing all info on valid secondary topics, which is teams, and that's not the case. The point of primary topic is more about deciding which thing will have priority when deciding the scope of the article. That's why Renault in Formula One covers the original Renault team and all subsequent Renaults until 2011 (the sub-headings using team names are a logical thing to do), but we separate Lotus Renault GP from Lotus F1 Team, as they became a new constructor. Secondly, all redirects to the article should be bolded, especially those mentioned on the lede, that doesn't mean "Renault Sport Formula One Team" is more important for the article that all Renault's past entries or the constructor itself. Thirdly, these days "team" and "constructor" are de facto the same thing from an operative perspective, so you need to mention team personnel and suppliers, as those are the personnel and suppliers for the constructor. --Urbanoc (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Urbanoc: your points all support keeping the team information in these articles, unlike the arguments from Tvx1 above to which I was replying. Whether we keep all the team information in these articles or split them into one or more additional articles for the teams, I still believe we need to provide a simple previous/next method to walk up and down the team chains wherever they are described - as we do between the car models, the seasons, the Grands Prix, etc. I have not yet seen a reason not to provide that chain for the readers benefit, and it would seem pointless not to (especially as we try to do it currently).

So are we now arguing whether to actually keep all the team and constructor data together in the same articles, or are we still trying to find a way of providing a team chaining mechanism within multi-team articles to allow the current team chaining system to be able to pass both ways through these types of article too. I would personally say let's stick with the latter and see what we can dream up between us. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think infoboxes are the best way to achieve this. Navboxes were invented for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs) 2018-03-31T23:59:46 (UTC)

That maybe so, but we do use them all over the F1 articles for this purpose, so it's not that unusual if there's one sitting there in the right place. However, if the consensus turns out to be that we cannot tolerate the use of the F1 team infoboxes (that are used for most of the other F1 teams) just these particular F1 teams, then I guess we'll need to design create and add inavboxes to them instead, and to all the other individual team articles for consistency and usabilty. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

How my arguments are against Tvx1's? We both agree the navegational parameters in the infobox should go. I don't think Tvx1 are saying we must remove all info on teams, just that our focus is constructors. I invite you to read again what I said, more carefully this time. In fact, I invite any editor to read what I said and comment if I was supporting your position in any way. It was quite the opposite. To repeat myself, I'm against the reductionist fallacy of your argument, which is that if we mention info on the teams, we need to give them some form of special treatment, either through infoboxes or separated articles. My points ("Firstly", "Secondly", "Thirdly") were a 3-part debunking of that idea. To resume them:

a) To include some information on teams doesn't imply either we need to give them special treatment or that our primary focus isn't constructors. In brief, we can just remove the pointless/confusing things (as the navegational parameters) and keep the important.

b) To bold text doesn't imply something is a primary topic of an article. It can just mean it's a redirect.

c) From an operational perspective (but not from an statistical or historical one), both constructors and teams are the same thing nowdays, so obviously we need to include some information that both share (drivers, suppliers, personnel). That doesn't imply the focus is teams. --Urbanoc (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

From your latest comments it's clear that you have misunderstood my ideas and comments here, and that I've apparently misunderstood yours too. Rather than squabble about how much constructor info should be present in the team infobox and how much team info should be removed from it, let's try and be constructive about how we can fix the original problem - the team chain navigation issue, for our readers. Tvx1 has reminded us that navboxes are available for this purpose. What's your view on replacing the team navigation elements in the team infoboxes with a new navbox, a navbox that can then also be used (rather than an infobox) for the teams that are covered only in sub-sections of others teams' articles? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That's fair enough. But, in that case, I've to return to what I've said earlier, which is I don't share your view that there is a problem and we must include little navigational boxes everywhere or we must highlight in some form sections of an article. If some of the navigational tools we have now are confusing, my opinion is that it's better to remove them, not compensating adding more confusion. I don't know if Tvx1's comment was either supporting navboxes for the teams or saying that we must use them instead of infobox templates if a consensus for that arises. Maybe he can clarify that, but I say it's better adding nothing. Going even far, I personally think putting too much emphasis on teams (or more exactly "entrants", as teams is a vague term) is WP:UNDUE, as that's not reflected on our sources, where constructors get more coverage even if they are also conflated with the mix of people and infrastructure running them. That's a problem, really, and one of the reasons I think this project set to focus on constructor instead of team, as the word team, in an F1 context, is an intentionally vague term that can mean three different things when used, especially on the press: a) The constructor, b) The entrant, c) The combination of the physical location and the personnel working for them. Nevertheless, constructor is the more common synonym. All three "Renaults" are mostly seen as one, following the constructor. When those entrants are discussed, the press reports covering them tend to focus more on the past of the constructor than on the entrants or the structures running them. For example, most press reporting on the Mercedes 2014 constructor championship say that it was the first for Mercedes, while some (less) also point out in a second sentence that it was the second for the "Brackley-based team" (the latter chiefly by the British press, unsurprisingly). Even more rare were the ones mentioning the actual entrant name, "Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team". The same logic also goes for Renault. In any case, generic, made-up terms aimed at fandom like "Team Enstone" or "Team Brackley" are far more common in opinion pieces that in actual news reports, but prove that the word team in Formula One is quite malleable and can be used for a lot of things.

Of course, there're certain special cases where the entrant, called in those articles team (in fact, when team is used within Wikipedia, it often refers to the present-day "entrant" concept), is equally relevant, but that's generally on situations where it either existed before the constructor bearing its name or the "constructor" concept didn't ever exist (Ferrari, Williams), and those cases are treated differently already.

If neccesary, internal links can be pointed to specific sections, but anyone reading the lead section of the Renault constructor article can see if the same base location was used for other constructors before/after, and in fact, links to them right there. The lead section of the Mercedes contructor article not even mentions Brawn GP and no-one complains there's a lack of information. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST isn't an argument in itself, but the point is that the Mercedes article gives even less coverage to the "other constructor/entrant" past than the Renault one. There're links through the article to Benetton and Lotus F1, even to Toleman which was technically based in another location. We just don't need to make it seem like the past constructors/entrants (or the different entrants associated with the same constructor) are more/equally important in the Renault in Formula One article than the Renault constructor. And, at this point, no-one more seems to think there's a problem with the Renault article as it is. The problems most people see on the Renault in Formula One article are more related to the content quality than to navigational issues, and those must be tackled diffently. --Urbanoc (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a problem; the team name chain that starts with "Toleman" and progresses to "Benetton Formula" and then to "Renault F1 Team" is broken at that point (within the Renault in Formula One article) and the three names used under Renault ("Renault F1 Team", "Lotus Renault GP" and "Renault Sport F1 Team") are not linked up, which also means that "Lotus F1" (which occurred between "Lotus Renault GP" and "Renault Sport F1 Team" is cut out of the chain). You cannot logically deny that - it is a fact - the chain stops - there is nothing there to click to either go back to the previous link or forward to the next one. There is not a problem with the general logic of the team links, and they are not confusing as you seem to be trying to imply. In fact, as they are all simple one-to-one sequences, they could hardly be less complex.

The only obstacle to fixing the discontinuity seems to be an unwillingness to accept that the three different names used by the team for its three different eras using the "Renault" constructor name (the last two being separated by a period using "Lotus" as the constructor name) are of equal notability to the names the team used whilst using all the other constructor names. I cannot understand the logic or reason for that stance: all the team names are recognised and documented in reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I said remove the previous/next name parameters from the inboxes and I stand by it. I did mention navboxes but the longer I think about it the less I think that is an efficient solution. As it stands the necessary links are actually already present in the prose and we can further refine these to make them lead to the relevant sections of the involved articles.Tvx1 15:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: why make the team chain navigation more difficult and more obscure when it is, apart currently from within the Renault in Formula One article, so straightforward at the moment? It doesn't add up. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Who says it's more difficult and more obscure? I think it's more instinctive. The alternative you propose is as you admitted confusing and unworkable because it requires creating even more infoboxes containing false information. Moreover, Renault is not the only one affect. Honda in Formula One and Mercedes-Benz in Formula One are affected as well. The former actually shows the correct example of how the infobox for such an article should look like (save for the previous/next name parameters which don't make sense there at all). In the Renault and Mercedes cases the infobox focuses to much on the latest incarnations.Tvx1 21:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Well; buried in a different place in the prose of each team is clearly more awkward and time consuming to find and use than in the same, predictable, place on a team infobox or navbox. And I said the sequential one-to-one chain is very simple, not not confusing or unworkable to add and use. So with just three articles potentially needing fixing, why throw out the baby with the bathwater and reduce the usability of all the other dozens of team articles using the previous/next facility just because of a few minutes adjustment in three articles? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Curious how that argument is apparently only valid in your favor. For some reason you do not have a problem to burry the identity of the tyre supplier deeply in the prose instead of keeping it easily visible in a table.Tvx1 22:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Then how do you explain the way the 2018 article has an entire sub-section dedicated to the tyres? Most championship articles have paragraphs dedicated to the tyres, given that Pirelli revise the compunds yearly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: if you look again, a bit more dispassionately perhaps, you will see that the argument has a more subtle nuance than that. Navigation controls are easy to use if they are immediately to hand and consistent, and so it's not appropriate the for them only be available buried somewhere in the prose, and need to be searched out to use. That is the point I'm making here in support of fixing the team chain issue here. OTOH, redundant columns in tables are completely pointless - that type of information that applies equally to all teams and all cars and all drivers is better presented in the prose, and not repeated for each team as if it could vary in any way. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Well the 2015 and 2017 articles don't have a dedicated section on tyres. So that argument doesn't hold up. As for the team chain, the problem is the chains you want to include are somewhat fictitious. They have no claim on each other's achievements and in same cases the information is outright wrong. In the case of Honda in Formula One. BAR is not the previous name of the Honda works team and Brawn GP isn't the following name. This parameters just don't make sense at all there. The body of the article does each a much better job of providing the history, how the latest incarnation came to be and what happened after its demise.Tvx1 21:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: The team name chains are not "ficticious", they are based purely on verifiable facts. Each of the teams in question here are operated by stand-alone companies which have existed under the same company registration details through various ownership changes and name changes over the years. They keep the same company number for their lifetime, but with their company names changed at the whim of their current owners. Take the current Mercedes team for example, it is registered with Companies House as company number 00787446[5] and as having been incorporated as Tyrrell Racing Organisation in 1964. The registration details list its name changes, including to British American Racing Grand Prix in 1998, to BAR Honda GP in 2009, to Honda GP in 2006, to Brawn GP 2009 and to its current name in 2010. So we can certainly verify the various names in the team name chain. You say Brawn isn't the following name of the Honda team, well read this about Ross Brawn's takeover of the Honda team, and you'll see that there is no doubt that it is the same team under a new name - same personnel, same facilities, same cars under development and all: [6]. I cannot see any good reason why these team name chains aren't worth exposing, and in the most efficient way possible, for our readers. They will help readers explore the pedigrees and heritage of the teams, and allow them to acquire more knowledge from Wikipedia. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not the same team. New owner, new competitor, new independent records. As for the company registration. That's just the registration of the base of operations. All that companies house link proves is who the previous owners of those facilities were. That doesn't mean there is a continuation between the owners. Take Haas for instance, they have two company registrations. One in the US and one in the UK. Does that mean there are two Haas teams competing in Formula 1? No, not in the least. A base of operations is just that. It's list of previous inhibitors has no meaning as to who results in the sport are credited to.Tvx1 21:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: did you read the Telegraph article about Ross Brawn? The teams operate as self-contained units - that can be bought and sold as units. Companies House isn't a register of facilities, it is a register of companies, and the business of the companies is monitored and recorded, and these operate as racing teams. Brawn GP inherited the Honda team and continued where they left off, that is very clear from their car and their results. The Haas team may have companies registered in two different countries, but only one of those will be registered with the FIA, and that will be the team's main company, the other will be a subsidiary of it, or a subsidiary of its holding company. Red Bull has more than one company involved in F1, two are teams and the other a shared factory I believe. The Red Bull UK-based team started life as Stewart Grand Prix in 1995, becoming Jaguar Racing in 2000 and subsequently Red Bull Racing in 2004. I don't think anyone has suggested that the FIA/F1 results recording system doesn't differentiate between the respective owner-designated "constructor" names, but the teams themselves certainly keep tallies of their past achievements, regardless of what they were called at the time, and it is not difficult to find examples where the press has said things like 'this is the team that has won x drivers' and y constructors' world championships under z different constructor names. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure a read it, but I don't know what you are trying to prove with it. 300 of the 750 people working in Brackley, or nearly half of them were laid off. So Brawn hired some of the key people who use to work Honda? Does that make it the same team? No. Brawn continued where Honda left off as is "very clear from their car and their results"? No, not in the least. The cars entered by Honda did never even come close to what the Brawn GP cars achieved. And don't come claiming the cars resembled each other. The 2008 Honda didn't not look like the 2009 Brawn in any way. The minute Honda sold their F1 operation the Japanese working ethic was removed and the two teams are completely independent competitors. It's been carefully explained to you before that the registry of base of operations with the companies house is nothing but a registration of the financial institution operating said base. Bills need to be paid, salaries need to be paid, profits or losses are made and all of that has to be registered somewhere. It says nothing about the racing teams and the history of their identity, nor about who has the right to claim the sportive achievements. The registration of the competitors is completely independent from that.Tvx1 22:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes for each team in multi-team articles (convenience break 1)

@Tvx1: just from that one source (with my emphasis in places):

• "Ross Brawn's Formula One team complete Honda takeover"
• "Honda will race as Brawn GP in new F1 season"
• "And British driver Jenson Button, who took a $7.5million (£5.4 million) pay cut to stay with the team"
• "Brawn did confirm, however, that the current management team, including chief executive Nick Fry, would remain in place."
• '"Quite simply, I have purchased the team from Honda," Brawn said'

That unequivocally supports the case that the Brawn team is the same team, in all but name, as the Honda team. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to say more about the car... From the car article (Brawn BGP 001) and various RSes we get:

• Ross Brawn quoted in March 2009 as saying they have been working on the car for 15 months (i.e. well back into the team's Honda era).[7]
• A description in Racecar Engineering as to how the BGP001 was largely based on the RA109 being developed by Honda before Brawn took over.[8]
• "The BGP001 had a very long gestation period, with work beginning on it as early as 2007. Aerodynamicist Ben Wood began working on the car while he was at Honda's Super Aguri satellite team, and Honda simultaneously had a team working on their 2009 concept. Eventually they were combined. Honda had such an appalling season in 2008 that development instead went into the 2009 car, which became a Brawn when Honda pulled the plug on F1 last December." [9]

It is beyond doubt that the Brawn team was a continuation of the the Honda team under a new name. I hope you'll now agree. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

No I don't. They are different constructors and therefore different competitors. It's no up to The Telegraph to decide about continuation, they don't have the relevant authority. That lies with the FIA. As explained right from the start of this discussion our article deal with constructors, not teams. We don't have articles on "Team Brackley", "Team Milton Keynes", "Team Enstone", "Team Maranello" (well actually we do in a way for that last one because only one constructor ever operated from there) and so on. All the information in the Honda article relates to Honda works entries. All the numbers relate to results achieved by cars entered as Hondas. That's why the parameters are misleading for our readers in relation to the rest of the information in the article. The previous name for a Honda works entry before the 2006-2008 one was "Honda R&D" not "BAR".Tvx1 00:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: the Telegraph (or any of the other innumerable reliable sources saying basically the same thing) haven't decided anything, all they have done is report and comment upon the reality. We cannot pretend that the Brawn team was a new team, when all the evidence I've presented shows that it is exactly the same team as the Honda team - under new ownership and with a new name. Sure, under Honda control the team chose to brand itself as "Honda" and under Brawn control it chose to brand itself as "Brawn", and that affected how the FIA regarded it under their rules, but that doesn't affect the reality, as reflected in the reliable sources, that there is only one underlying team, the one that Honda sold intact, lock stock and barrel, to Brawn, and which then changed its namr to "Brawn".

That the "team" articles are currently constructor-centric, in that they document the competitive history of the constructor name, does not mean that we cannot be honest about the fact (as documented in the reliable sources) if different physical teams have been bought and renamed to compete as that constructor name over time. And we cannot deny that some physical teams have been bought & renamed and sold & renamed more than once, and have thus competed as more than one constructor name in their history. The articles can adequately cover all of this, as indeed in an encyclopaedia such as this, they should. So let's accept that we can elaborate a bit on the intermediate physical teams and correct the navigation issues between some of them. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

And when did I claim we aren't honest about the history. In fact all the contested articles already adequately cover all of the background and afterwards in the articles' bodies. However, including these parameters which otherwise only deals with the results of the constructors in the sport as credited by the FIA is utterly confusing to our readers. Why is that so difficult to understand? And while bases and assets can be bought and sold. Entries cannot. It's for that exact reason that Phoenix Finance was not allowed to compete in 2002 after having acquired Prost's assets. They did not complete the required registration for a new team and did pay the required entry fee. Brawn GP was a new team for all sportive intents and purposes.Tvx1 13:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I'm not sure what parameters you are talking about - we are discussing how we can provide navigation aids to correctly join up the missing links in the team name chains, in the absence of the full team template for each team incarnation. That seems a very straightforward requirement, and one which will add clarity. We aren't talking about entries either, we are talking about teams, the teams that get bought, sold and renamed and which take on the guise of different constructors on the whim of their current owners. The fact that a team was unable to compete one season because its paperwork wasn't in order is irrelevant to this point. The Brawn team was the same team (as supported by multiple reliable sources), operating as a new constructor - and even the FIA recognised that when it waived the normal registration fee for its new constructor entry.[10]

The problem we have here - with trying to agree a way forward is, I think, rooted in the FIA's definition of the word "constructor" and the sloppy way that the word "team" is often used as a synonym of the FIA's "constructor" in these articles. In the English language the noun "team", used in relation to sport, means: "A group of players forming one side in a competitive game or sport" or more generally as "Two or more people working together. ‘a team of researchers’".[11] OTOH, the noun "constructor" has a specific definition in F1, which ties it to the name used for the make of the car (or for the make of the engine in the case of engine constructors). So if the team (in the normal English language sense) change their name (because of a sponsor or an ownership change, for example) that automatically means they are a different constructor (in the FIA sense).

So, in summary: the team (in the normal English language sense) can be renamed and otherwise continue as the same physical team, but an FIA constructor cannot, as to do so automatically turns it into a different constructor. Perhaps we need to be more careful in our word choice, and be very careful to distinguish between "team" when used in the normal English sense and "team" when used as a synonym for FIA "constructor". -- DeFacto (talk). 21:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There you have it in your own source "The WMSC accepted this request on the basis that the team is, in effect, a new entry in the FIA Formula One World Championship.". The team was a new entry. That they decide to make a special exception regarding the entry fee did not change their status. And I was referring to the previous name/next parameters, by the way.Tvx1 20:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: no-one denies that because it had a new name it had to be treated as a new entry, because that's the way the FIA rules work. The point here is that it was an existing physical team that was renamed, not a new team too - as conceded by the FIA by their exceptional fee waiver and by the innumerable sources describing the team's history. The name/next parameters are needed to navigate between articles and/or sections within articles covering the team under it's various names - that requirement hasn't gone away. Are you denying that the they were the same physical team (in the pure English sense rather than when its a synonym of "constructor")? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Monaco Grand Prix winners

Is anyone concerned about the appearance of this as well as Template:Brazilian Grand Prix winners --Falcadore (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The template nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 15. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Qualifying/starting grid pictogram

I figured I'd bring this issue here before I did some reverting. @Aliwal2012: has added pictograms of both the qualifying and starting grid of the 2018 Australian Grand Prix and 2018 Bahrain Grand Prix displaying top-down views of the cars. However, I believe that things like this, or similar to this, have been attempted before but I'd like to get responses from the Project. I personally think it is redundant and does not serve any purpose to add information to the article. This is a graphic made simply for the sake of making a graphic and does not help anyone understand either qualifying or the starting grid of the race. Further, unless you particularly know the differences between the individual driver helmets, there is no way to tell two team cars apart. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi everybody, I'm glad you discuss before reverting me!

I brought the cars' pictogram in question over from the fr:wiki where it is used for some years now, first onto af:wiki (my mother tongue) and now onto en:wiki. There is a gentleman on the wiki that is painstakingly reproducing these pictograms for every race's qualifying and starting grid.

I know it looks a bit odd in the article's text, but for me as a newcomer to F1 it makes good sense to see how the grid changes after penalties are applied to different drivers. If you enlarge the template, you will also see that each and every car-pic shows the exact team colours and driver (as you correctly stated the helmet pattern).

I think it is worthwhile to include this, at least it adds some colour to an otherwise dull page!! --Aliwal2012 (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with @The359 — it's completely redundant. And while the efforts of @Odor are not unappreciated, we should not be including content in an article simply because someone took the time to make it, especially when it adds nothing to the article.

As for "adding colour to a dull page", that's the worst argument for inclusion I could think of. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I always felt that these images were strange and I did not quite understand why the German Wikipedia for instance uses them. I would vote against using them, a table should suffice. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the others that this is not an improvement of the articles. All these pictures are not accessible. People using assistive technologies aren't relayed the information. And even for people who don't use them, the graphs are difficult to read. I, for one, cannot distinguish the Williamses and have a high difficulty distinguishing the Haases. Zwerg Nase, these graphs aren't being used on the German counterparts of the contested articles.Tvx1 21:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Aren't they. I think they used to at least... Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Now I, as the creator of these pictograms, feel almost compelled to explain my art. :-) I've been making these pictograms for more than two decades now, but only began uploading them to Wikimedia 7 years ago. I personally prefer looking at images or graphs instead of tables or long lists. So I'm painting them for my own pleasure and don't actively add them to Wikipedia articles. I don't mind at all that you decided not to use my pictograms in the English Wikipedia; I totally understand your reasoning. Some other Wikipedias like to use them (only because of that I learned about Galician language!) and that's reason enough for me to keep uploading them. As I said, I'm not actually creating them for Wikipedia, but for myself. Greetings, Oᴅᴏʀ (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Sergey Sirotkin

Sergey Sirotkin (racing driver) is proposed to move to Sergey Sirotkin, your comment on the proposal will be welcomed here. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Circuit maps

For some time I have been bothered by the circuit maps that we use in articles. Individually, there is nothing wrong with them; they're all very well-made. However, the issue is that they have a variety of styles and I feel that they should be the same. Here is a sample of what I am talking about:

Normally I would just go ahead and make the changes myself, but unfortunately I don't have the skills to be able to do this (I can barely draw a convincing stick figure) and so I'm hoping to garner some support from the WikiProject. Personally, my preference is for what I'm calling the "Silverstone style":

I like this because it's minimalisy. It only shows the circuit (unlike the Abu Dhabi map, which shows additional roads), the corners are numbered and the names applied (where appropriate), and there is a scale, compass direction and some arrows showing direction of travel. The only change I would make is to re-orient the image slightly to use the horizontal space more effectively.

Would anyone be interested in working on this? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I have found in the past that there is a very limited number of people who actually make these maps. I once searched for an updated map of the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve and wrote to every person who had done F1 maps, but they had all retired from doing stuff on Wikipedia by that point... Apart from that, I'd be all for consistency in maps. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase — I am told that it is quite easy to make the images; apparently all you need is a basic graphics program and Google Maps. But like I said, I'm no artist. You might as well ask me to paint the Sistene Chapel. I'm also told that there are some WikiProjects that produce images for other WikiProjects, so if we get support for change but lack the ability to do it ourselves, approaching them might be an option. We would just need to know exactly what we are looking for and maybe provide GPS co-ordinates for each circuit so that editors unfamiliar with the sport can find them.

I also noticed that @Pyrope uploaded the image for Buddh International Circuit, which I think I like even more than the Silverstone image. I'm hoping he might know of some editors who could do similar work. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I can tell you from experience that it's not that easy as at all. I had a go myself at creating a map of the original layout of Laguna Seca Raceway and it was a real pain to do it.Tvx1 22:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm fully in support of making circuit maps more uniform. There are indeed some tweaks that may not be that hard to do (I've done some of these in the past): e.g. changing fill styles of the road surfaces, tweaking/adding/removing some elements like corner numbers/names; while making maps from scratch may be more much laborious. I believe there are still a few people who make maps who are active, who have made maps from scratch – but I think it would make sense to come up with a set of specs (or zero in on one of the existing examples as a spec for the rest of the maps), and make a wide call to the community to help with such a project. What do you think? cherkash (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

New parameters for infoboxes

Outside Formula 1 articles, I edit WRC articles, and I have found a pair of parameters in Template:Infobox rally that I think would be of benefit in Template:Infobox Grand Prix race report. This is what I am talking about:

2018 Rally Sweden
Round 2 of 13 in the 2018 World Rally Championship ← Previous event Next event →

I think it would be beneficial for the reader to be able to switch from one race to the next at the top of the article rather than at the bottom as is currently the case. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections, I have added the new parameters. DH85868993 (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe these parameters have been removed in a misguided editing spree sometime in mid-2017 (see e.g. here as one example of the series of edits). Shortly after, an objection was raised and the editor involved agreed to stop this activity – but the majority of the articles was never reverted. Hence my question to you DH85868993: how far back did you go now to add these parameters back? Because I believe this calamity may have affected a lot of races as early as 1950. cherkash (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi cherkash. Different parameters. What I have just done is to add the "Previous round" and "Next round" parameters to the template. I haven't made any (recent) changes to the "Round X of Y in the <championship>" part (= the "Round_No" and "Season_No" parameters), either in the template or the race report articles. I think PM probably included that line in the infobox displayed at the right to show the location of the "Previous round" and "Next round" labels within the infobox. DH85868993 (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Article titles (revisited)

A few months ago, we made a change in article naming conventions. "19/20XX Formula One season" was moved to "19/20XX FIA Formula One World Championship". However, upon reflection I am not convinced that this was the best location to move the article to; "19/20XX FIA Formula 1 World Championship" would be a better location as it is used in most articles. For example, this one from Autosport:

"Daniel Ricciardo has received a three-place grid penalty for his home Formula 1 race"

Nor is it a one-off, as shown by this atticle from Autosport:

"Sebastian Vettel believes there is "a lot" more performance to come from Ferrari, having not felt comfortable in Friday practice for the Formula 1 season-opening Australian Grand Prix"

It's not just within articles that Autosport do this—they organise stories by category and one of their categories is "Formula 1".

Other sources Speedcafe do it, too:

"Lewis Hamilton led a Mercedes one-two in the opening practice session of the Formula 1 Australian Grand Prix."

Of the 56 references currently used in the 2018 article, 27 use "Formula 1" or "F1" as opposed to "Formula One" (I haven't counted articles from teams that use the 1 in their entrant name). These come from a wide range of publishers, including the FIA, Road & Track, Renault, Autosport, GP Update, TASS, Speedcafe, Eurosport, ESPN and Autoweek. As per WP:COMMONNAME, I think it is safe to conclude that "19/20XX FIA Formula 1 World Championship" is the best name to use (although having said that, I haven't had a chance to look at other articles). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I first mentioned this on the 2018 talk page to see if it was worth bringing up here. I'm going to tag @Joseph2302, @Corvus tristis and @Zwerg Nase since they commented on the subject there. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

We had this discussion last year after you brought it up, linked here for reference. I do not see how anything has changed since then, so I'll repeat my answer from then...

The choice between digit and word is a stylistic choice which varies between publications and sometimes changes over the years. There is no correct or incorrect choice, as both are in common usage, and both are used on an official basis in different contexts. There are various style guides which are split over recommending one or 1 (I could probably still access them for reference), which demonstrates the lack of any common usage. In the wild, when you expand from the motorsport media to the general media, the variety of usage is evident; the specialist media has largely harmonised on 1, but the broadsheet operations (The Times, The Guardian, FT, New York Times, Economist, etc) actually more commonly use one, as do many book publishers (based upon my library, yours of course may differ). It was also noted by GTHO that the FIA uses "FIA Formula One World Championship", and as both choices meet the five naming criteria, official usage may tip the scale for the status quo.

Because a common name is not apparent, and that criteria is arguably inapplicable on the basis that the choice of digit or word is a question of style not meaning, I'll refer to WP:TITLECHANGES: If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed.. QueenCake (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@QueenCake — if there is no apparent common name, then I would argue that we should defer to the subject matter itself. The articles are about the championship, so how does the championship present itself?

Put it this way: if someone with no knowledge of the sport clicks "Random" on the main page, winds up reading the 2018 article and finds themselves interested enough to watch their first Grand Prix, what are they going to see? The sport has consistently presented itself as "Formula 1" for at least twenty years (that's what the debate over the negative space logo was all about). Everything from advertising to paraphinelia to companies associated with/endorsed by the championship (eg F1 Experiences) use the digit and while these are official names, they don't differ wildly from a common name. If it is a toss-up between the word or the digit, I would go with digit because both official and third-party sources use it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, Formula 1 is the top tier of the FIA Global Pathway, a push to consolidate the single-seater progression ladder. Other championships endorsed by the FIA—including Formula 2, Formula 3 and Formula 4—all use digits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The championship presents itself as Formula One, as you can see from the FIA, who own this sport. The rights holder may use 1, but they are also called Formula One Management, so they are hardly consistent themselves. It makes absolutely no difference what readers see, because we assume they have the extremely basic capacity to know what a number is whether expressed as word or digit. I will repeat that there is no common usage, once you stop cherry-picking sources to suit your own preference. QueenCake (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not cherry-picking sources. In the opening post, I'm referring to the 56 sources used in the 2018 article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

If we are finally going to adhere to WP:COMMONNAME, we should also drop the FIA moniker from the titles and go to "19/20XX Formula 1 World Championship" per the previous discussion on the matter.Tvx1 00:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

How about we just deal with this one issue at a time? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, let's focus at the issue at hand first. I have stated on the 2018 talk page that I'd be in favour of changing to the digit, since "Formula 1" is the term that the licence holder uses. However, looking at the FIA website, they consistently use "Formula One", especially when laying out the regulations, the definite framework of how this series comes into being in the first place. Considering that, I am actually in favour of keeping it as it is now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase — that's the name the FIA use, but it's also arguably an WP:OFFICIALNAME. The FIA is invaluable as a source, but there is a danger of over-relying on it. It would be the same as if we only drew on Autosport for article content. WP:COMMONNAME suggests that we should rely on independent and third-party sources in deciding article titles and there is a wide range of sources that use the digit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful in any way to put our articles through two moves in quick succession, so I think it's best that we tackle both issues in one go.Tvx1 13:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Who said anything about two moves? We settle on one issue and then we settle on the other. Then we move it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I really don't see why we couldn't discuss both in one go. The issue is not that complicated.Tvx1 13:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

If we go by WP:COMMONNAME (and why wouldn't we?), I think we should be reviewing the whole name and not just the "One"/"1" part of it. Googling just English-language pages and excluding Wikipedia, with "All" and "News" options gives:

Search string	Count for "All"	Count for "News"
"2018 FIA Formula One World Championship"	14100	408
"2018 Formula One World Championship"	33500	4530
"2018 FIA Formula 1 World Championship"	11000	546
"2018 Formula 1 World Championship"	16400	1890

So it looks like "2018 Formula One World Championship" best satisfies the common name policy statement: most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). -- DeFacto (talk). 18:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a difference between Googling the terms and looking at the number of independent and reliable sources. Googling gives you everything, so unless you're willing to check every search result, you cannot use it to judge the number of sources. After all, Googling the terms is highly likely to include Joe Saward's blog in its results and Saward is not a reliable source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

It gives a feel for the relative magnitudes involved. Or are you saying all the unreliable sources use one particular wording and the reliable sources use another? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. Unreliable sources may use either wording or both. There's no way to tell unless ypu evaluate each source independently. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

As do reliable sources. I'm not sure where you're going here, after it has been clearly demonstrated there is not common wording. QueenCake (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

What I'm trying to point out is that we cannot simply Google the terms and use the number of results to guide our decision-making because of the potential for unreliable sources to be included in that number. For example, DeFacto searched Google News for "2018 FIA Formula One World Championship" and "2018 FIA Formula 1 World Championship". He got 408 results for the former and 546 for the latter. But what if 200 of the latter results came from Joe Saward, who is an unreliable source? Suddenly we've got 408 results for one and 346 for the other. We cannot take the numbers as absolute. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think DeFacto ever claimed that these numbers are absolute. Regardless the difference between the number of hits for "2018 Formula One World Championship" is more than large enough to be meaningful.Tvx1 13:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

So where are we with this? I think the common name is pretty clear-cut.Tvx1 00:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Given that the discussion tailed off so quickly, I don't think there's really any appetite for change. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually I think there is a reasonable support.Tvx1 01:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Most of the conversation has so far revolved around how to measure the common name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You're again the only one opposing what the guidelines encourage us to do. If there is no further opposition. I'll start moving the articles next week.Tvx1 20:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you won't. When we first moved the articles from "season" to "championship", we established a consensus to use the current name. You will need a new consensus to change it. After all, you said it yourself: they are guudelines. They are not biblical commandments. Your concerns were taken into consideration when that consensus was formed, so please stop misrepresenting things. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The consensus is clear. You cannot unilaterally object to it. It's not up to you to decide what happens and what doesn't.Tvx1 12:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the original consensus is clear: that the name"19/20XX FIA Formula One World Championship" is most appropriate. You haven't established a new consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Strangely, you're the only one who thinks so. Just because a consensus was achieved at some point it doesn't mean these titles are locked in for all eternity. Consensus can change. And two subsequent discussions were held showing a clear support for the moves I ultimately made. You're the only one refusing to accept a change and are for some reason unable to even accept the existence of opinions disagreeing with you, all the while not bringing one meaningful arguments as to why it is vital to include FIA in the titles. The only thing you have done right from the start is to desperately try to prevent it being discussed at all.Tvx1 22:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"Strangely, you're the only one who thinks so."

Could it be that I am the only one who has had time to respond? The original discussion took almost three months to resolve. You raised the issue and when the discussion petered out, you issued an ultimatum of three days and only four editors have actually contributed to this discussion. You know perfectly well that major changes take time to introduce and that moving forty pages constitutes a major change. Furthermore, you also acknowledged that the policies you insist on enforcing are simply guidelines. At the very least, you should have allowed more time for people to participate in the discussion before taking it upon yourself to do as you please.

Also, the original discussion involved ten people. This one only involved four. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you can neither read nor count. The policies I refer to are quite blatantly policies. If you would bother to click on WP:COMMONNAME or WP:PRECISE you would see a note on that page clearly identifying it as a policy. The policy on article titles. And we cannot ignore policies for the sake of it. Secondly, this discussion contained five participants (You, QueenCake, DeFacto, Zwerg Nase, me). As did the related discussion from last October. Also your claim of this just taking three days, when it's clear this issue was thoroughly discussed over seven months (over the twice the length of time it took for the original discussion) is just wrong. Over these two discussions only one person ever agreed with you with keeping the titles, DeFacto, but clearly has changed their mind.So the consensus is clear for every one to see here. You are the lone opposer and consensus ≠ not unanimity.Tvx1 12:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, originally I was more concerned about replacing "season" with "championship", and hadn't really noticed that that the "FIA" bit wasn't that widely used. But now, per WP:COMMONNAME, I can see it is more usual to omit it. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"when it's clear this issue was thoroughly discussed over seven months"

I think the technical term for this is "bullshit". If it was thoroughly discussed over seven months, why was the original archived? You're attempting to portray this as an ongoing debate, but if that were true, the debate would be ongoing. It would not have stopped, been archived and then revived months later.

And yes, that's the only part of your comment that I'm going to address. It's such a blatant misrepresentation of the discussion that to address anything else would just be fuelling your behaviour. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

All I wanted to pointed out is that seven months passed since this was first raised. That first discussion was only archived in early January. So it was live for three months. This discussion has been running for nearly a month as well. That defeats all your accusations that not enough time was given for comments to be made. An over those two discussion you are the only one still making a fuss over this. I really don't understand why you take such offense to this change. The titles as they stand perfectly tell our readers what the articles deal with. I can't understand your objection to them because you keep complaining about technicalities in the process the move came about rather than bringing arguments regarding the titles themselves.Tvx1 01:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

"All I wanted to pointed out is that seven months passed since this was first raised."

But what you actually said was that the issue was discussed "over seven months", which suggests that the discussion had been ongoing during that time. I think that what you had meant to say was that it was discussed "over seven months ago", which completely changes the meaning of your statement. You cannot fault me for taking what you say at face value. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No I didn't mean to say "over seven months ago". That's simply incorrect. A first discussion ran from October until early January, a second one has been running since a month. That's not "over seven months" ago. More than enough opportunity was given for arguments as to why using FIA is necessary to be presented. They didn't come and there is only one opposer going by "I won't accept the change". Consensus is thus crystal clear and I acted.Tvx1 15:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

"More than enough opportunity was given for arguments as to why using FIA is necessary to be presented. They didn't come"

No argument that we came up with was ever going to be good enough because you had already made up your mind as to what you wanted.

WP:F1 prioritises sources all the time. For instance, we consider the FIA entry list to be the highest authority on entries. Williams have announced that Robert Kubica will appear during FP1 sessions during the year, but he doesn't appear in the team and driver table because he hasn't appeared on any entry lists yet. We should be prioritising the actual race as our source—ww know Ricciardo won in China not because Autosport ran a story about it but because we can watch the races ourselves. And those races are frequently re-broadcast, so they are peefectly valid as a source (and there are citation templates that make this possible). Given that the sport uses a world feed where all viewers, the race itself should be the primary source because it has a much higher degree of verifiability. And those races are always presented as "FIA Formula 1 World Championship". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I find it a bit strange that some editors (myself included) who participated in the original discussion extensively, were never notified about this new discussion taking place. My personal take is to keep the titles as agreed back in 2017: i.e., "XXXX FIA Formula One World Championship" (with a strong preference on including "FIA" in the title, and a weak preference of "One" over "1"). cherkash (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cherkash: sure we're all entitled to our opinions, but Wiki needs a sound policy-based reason to backup opinion if it is to carry weight in deciding a consensus. I think you need to explain why you think WP:COMMONNAME should be ignored for these articles, and what policy supports your preferred name. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Cherkash, I don‘t understad this contribution of yours at all. Throughout the previous discussion on removing the FIA part you strongly advocated indeed removing it and repeatedly asked when it would finally be done. Now that it has been done you come and state that it should reinstated without any explanation. That just doesn’t make sense.Tvx1 13:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me clarify (and qualify) my statement above. I didn't have much time to go into details when I made my comment above. I can elaborate some more now. So please consider this comment my latest stance on the subject.

I think a little more careful attention to details should have been paid by the editors who've recently moved/renamed the articles. There were a few valid objections raised by e.g. Prisonermonkeys in the original discussion, that would require some tweaking of the renaming even if we agreed to actually go ahead and rename the post-1980 F1 seasonal articles.

Couple points/examples I want to bring your attention to:

• In at least one of the intervening years (1981–present), there was more than one concurrent F1 championship run in the same year (1982 British Formula One Championship), so having 1982 FIA championship's article named simply "1982 Formula One Championship" instead of a more proper "1982 FIA Formula One Championship" would be misleading at the very least, and likely against the relevant Wikipedia policies. (There are other examples in earlier years: pre-1981 British Formula One Championship and South African Formula One Championship in 1960s & '70s – but since the renaming here concerns 1981 and onward seasons, these are brought here just as an example of things to be careful about, esp. if we further extend discussion at any point to the pre-1981 seasons.)

• There are other similar series that may not indeed need the "FIA" qualifier in the names of their articles (using the same argument for common names, etc.), that still nevertheless use it. Consider FIA Formula 2 Championship with its attendant articles for 2009 thru 2012, FIA European Formula 3 Championship (1975–1984) with individual season articles, etc.

And though I've indeed been strongly in favor of dropping the "FIA" part of the article names, we should have discussed and paid attention to a few more nuanced things before doing this round of renaming. Nothing hard to fix (indeed, it may only be 1982 article that requires fixing – but nevertheless a cautionary note about making sweeping changes to a number of years without paying attention).

Hence, my current stance – corrected and adjusted from above – is that I'm ok with the renaming of the majority of post-1980 season articles, with an exception for 1982, and with a strong preference for making such choice more uniform across multiple similar series/championships (at least the ones involving FIA).

- cherkash (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys did indeed mention the 1982 article in the original discussion. However I already addressed that back then. Contrary to your claim the 1982 article wasn't changed to "1982 Formula One Championship" but to "1982 Formula One World Championship". That's what provides the disambiguation. One is called "1982 Formula One World Championship" the other "1982 British Formula One Championship". I can't see how that leaves any confusion. There was only one of each type of championship that year. I don't really think using "FIA" there would help. We don't name the governing body for the British championship either. The presence of World is also what separates Formula One from the lower Formulae. There are no World Championships in Formula Two, Formula Three and indeed Formula Four.Tvx1 21:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

See, this is what we are supposed to do: we discuss the issue, come to decision and make changes from there. You don't make the changes and then adopt a siege mentality. You may not have understood cherkash's point, but that does not mean you get to deny him a voice. He was a participant in the original discussion—indeed, one of the earliest supporters; without him the discussion probably would not have gained traction—which maked him a stakeholder in this discussion. You don't get to arbitrarily decide who is notified of a discussion and who is not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you please stop with these delirious and baseless accusations of bad faith. I never made any discussion at all regarding nothing other users. I never denied anyone anything. I don't know what that claim is based on. I even asked Cherkash for more clarification. And over seven months have passed since this was first raised so you simply cannot accuse of me of not giving opportunity for discussion. And where do you even get the guts to accuse me of not engaging in discussion when right from the start you tried to use every sort of excuse to try and block this issue from being discussed. If there's one person on a siege it's you. It looks more and more like you cannot stand not having gotten your way on the one/1 thing and are now looking for a scapegoat to vent your frustration on. If you are really that convinced that my actions are so unacceptable and damaging to the project then please report me to the administrators and we'll see what they think of it.Tvx1 00:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

"I never denied anyone anything. I don't know what that claim is based on."

You don't think that people who were part of the original discussion might have some input when you're revisiting it? If nothing else, it's common courtesy to inform them of an ongoing discussion.

"I even asked Cherkash for more clarification."

Only once he joined the conversation. And he only joined after you moved the articles.

What you don't seem to grasp is that this isn't about what you do—it's about the way you do it. On the one hand, you preach the importance of certain policies and guidelines, but the way you make the changes looks very underhanded. When you don't inform the editors involved in the original discussion (especially those who supported the original title), it looks like you're going behind their backs or trying to cut them out of the process. I'm sure you'll reply, protesting your innocence and claiming these are bad faith accusations, but before you do, answer me this: why didn't you make any attempt to inform the editors involved in the original discussion that you wanted to make a change? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The only remaining person from the original discussion who had not made a contribution to this one was Cherkash, an editor who agreed with the removal of FIA. If I had sent them a personal notification about this discussion, I would have been canvassing, because that would have meant I consciously invited someone of who I knew that they agreed with me. Thus I merely respected the discussion process. Besides, what difference would it have made? No one agrees with you. Now If you have any actual arguments on the issue, present them. If you only have complaints about my actions, report me to the administrators. Otherwise, there's no point in continuing here. Nothing is being achieved here.Tvx1 11:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It would not have been canvassing if the notification was neutrally-worded. Something like "an issue you discussed has recently been re-opened and if you would like to contribute, you can find the new discussion here". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It would have been even with that message because of the person it would have been sent to. That’s the vote-stacking kind of canvassing.

Template:Brazilian Grand Prix winners

What would be the best treatment for this Template:Brazilian Grand Prix winners navbox? TfD or speedy deletion? If I remember correctly, these navboxes are not supported by the project. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• I was also mulling this over; but was going to post here to get other opinions as to whether this was a desirable (or necessary) addition. If a similar template were to be created for each GP by country then some driver articles would have an excessive number of navboxes. I believe it would have to go to TfD as it might not fit CSD criteria. Eagleash (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

TfD might be a better solution. Then (if the decision is "delete") we have something to point to in case this sort of thing happens again in the future. DH85868993 (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The template nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 15. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The template in question has by now been deleted. cherkash (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Link to List of Formula One drivers who have achieved a podium finish on Template:Infobox F1 driver

Template talk:Infobox F1 driver#Link to List of Formula One drivers who have achieved a podium finish

Please note the above article has been nominated for deletion SSSB (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Driver of the day

Way back when, after the Australian Grand Prix I added who had received driver of the day in the results section, however looking back at it now I noticed someone had removed it. Not wanting to start an edit war I was wondering what WP:F1's stance was on adding such information? SSSB (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It's irrelevant. It has absolutely no bearing on the races or the championship. Things are not notable enough for inclusion in an article simply because they happened. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

New entries table

After last year's debacle with Toro Rosso rotating drivers and a talk page discussion that was almost as long as the article, I've been looking at how we might be able to improve the entry table in championship articles.

A few things sprang to mind when considering this. First of all, the entry table in its current form is massive. Depending on your resolution, the table can extend beyond the boundaries of the screen even on laptops.

Secondly, the table format for post-2013 championship articles is largely carried over from the pre-2014 articles. There is a logic to how that table is arranged, but I use that term loosely—priority is given to the "Rounds" column, which is the column on the far right of the table. The general rule for arranging it is "alphabetically by constructor, then numerically by driver within each constructor unless there is a mid-season change, in which case priority is given to the first person to drive the car", which I think you will agree is a very complex set of conditions.

Finally, the constructor column is highlighted and upon reflection I have no idea why. It seems to have been a convention that was established through editconsensus in the early days of Wikipedia but I have to wonder about its continued merit. Why is the constructor column the only column that is highlighted? It implies that the constructor column is somehow more important than any other—but there is a championship for drivers as well as constructors, and both are equally important.

Looking at the pre-2014 articles, the organisation is quite clear: it is based on the car numbers. I started wondering how this could be applied to post-2014 articles whilst simplifying the table format and addressing the issues I outlined above. I found a suggestion in that epic 2014 discussion about how to organise the table that, while I initially opposed, have since come around to. I have been working on it elsewhere, such as WRC articles like 2018 Tour de Corse and I think it has worked well. So now I'm ready to unveil my proposal for entry tables in all post-2013 articles. You can view it in my sandbox. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It is an interesting proposal, and definitely not without merit. So thank you for putting it forward. I have one comment though, which may also explain why constructor column has been highlighted for a long time in multiple seasons: the constructor/team is really a primary and the only "competitor" in the championship, who then proceeds to enter drivers into the championship. This is the way the regulations are phrased. This should also explain why the drivers are grouped by team. cherkash (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: Can you show us what the 2017 table would look like in your proposed format (i.e. with Hartley using two different numbers and Sainz racing for two teams)? Note that I'm not opposed to your format, I'd just like to see how it handles "non-standard" cases. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@cherkash — I think that's a distinction that would be lost on most people. And if they really were the "only competitor", there would not be a drivers'championship.

@DH85868993 — sure thing, but it might take me a while. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem. (I'd be happy to see how just Sainz and Hartley's rows would appear, rather than the whole table, if that makes it easier/quicker). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the teams are the only "competitors" as defined in the regulations governing the sport – they are also called "entrants". Drivers are merely "entered" by those "competitors" (aka teams or constructors). So this is a clear hierarchy between teams and drivers as enshrined in the regulations. cherkash (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@@DH85868993 — you can view it here.

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, Hartley's entries could be condensed to a single row with a footnote explaining that he used two numbers. 2018 Supercars Championship does something similar; Mark Winterbottom used #200 at Philip Island instead of his regular #5, but rather than create an entirely new row for a number change, a note was used. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@cherkash — we are under no obligation to perfectly recreate a source when matters of practicality are involved. Case in point, we use entry lists from Grands Prix to substantiate the table. In 2016, entry lists were published with Hamilton listed before Rosberg despite Hamilton being #44 and Rosberg #6. However, we organised the 2016 table with Rosberg first and Hamilton second. While the idea that the constructors are the only real entrants might be technically correct, it is a distinction that is lost on the casual reader and it does not contribute anything to the articles. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, since you are implicitly deciding about the row grouping in the table ("by-driver-then-team" or "by-team-then-driver"), it shows the hierarchy between teams and drivers (in terms who's the primary entrant). And it's clearly the teams that are primary entrants. So in a sense, you are proposing to put an undue emphasis on drivers, for which there's no clear reason or support in sources. cherkash (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. My proposal organises the table by number, but clearly lists the entrant before the driver. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This puts undue emphasis on individual drivers, as opposed to drivers representing teams. I don't think this is justified, neither based on the popular F1 coverage (where drivers are almost never mentioned without connection to their team), nor based on the regulations as already mentioned. cherkash (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't put undue emphasis on the drivers. It puts equal emphasis on drivers and teams. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, the table should be sortable on all the usefully sortable columns. That way the reader could choose how to see it - sorted by number, entrant, driver, chassis or engine. That would probably mean removing the full-width sub-header rows. Any chance of trying that to see how it looks and works? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I have no idea how to write that markup. The sortable function isn't available on mobile devices and tablets.

We used to use the sortable function on tables back around 2014, but the benefits were never really observable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"... the benefits were never really observable" – and what did you use to observe and measure this, if anything, besides your personal preferences? Don't take it personally, as I'm not being sarcastic – I'm asking seriously. cherkash (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

There wasn't—to the best of my knowledge—a single comment on the effectiveness of the sortable function once it was introduced, it wasn't expanded to other articles or tables (eg sorting qualifying tables based on final grid position), and it was dropped after a year or two (it was used in 2014 and 2015 before it stopped in 2016). There were often issues with the existing formatting of the table that further complicated the use of the sortable function. There seemed to be an unspoken consensus that it was extremely difficult to implement for whatever benefit it offered.

Furthermore, DeFacto is proposing the removal of the full-width sub-headers to accomodate the use of the sortable function. However, that would mean cutting the FP1 drivers from the table and given that we consider FP1 drivers to be taking part in a Grand Prix weekend, it's a fairly sizable trade-off. I don't really see what benefit it would offer aside from putting drivers in the same team/car or using the same engine in adjacent rows, and I don't really see what that offers that would be worth cutting the FP1 drivers from the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's an example of the same table with sorting:

No.		Entrant		Driver	Chassis	Power unit	Rounds	Entry type
2		McLaren-Renault		Stoffel Vandoorne	McLaren MCL33	Renault R.E.18	1–5	Championship
3		Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer		Daniel Ricciardo	Red Bull Racing RB14	TAG Heuer	1–5	Championship
5		Ferrari		Sebastian Vettel	Ferrari SF71H	Ferrari 062 EVO	1–5	Championship
7		Ferrari		Kimi Räikkönen	Ferrari SF71H	Ferrari 062 EVO	1–5	Championship
8		Haas-Ferrari		Romain Grosjean	Haas VF-18	Ferrari 062 EVO	1–5	Championship
9		Sauber-Ferrari		Marcus Ericsson	Sauber C37	Ferrari 062 EVO	1–5	Championship
10		Scuderia Toro Rosso-Honda		Pierre Gasly	Scuderia Toro Rosso STR13	Honda RA618H	1–5	Championship
11		Force India-Mercedes		Sergio Perez	Force India VJM11	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+	1–5	Championship
14		McLaren-Renault		Fernando Alonso	McLaren MCL33	Renault R.E.18	1–2, 4–5	Championship
16		Sauber-Ferrari		Charles Leclerc	Sauber C37	Ferrari 062 EVO	1–5	Championship
18		Williams-Mercedes		Lance Stroll	Williams FW40	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+	1–5	Championship
20		Haas-Ferrari		Kevin Magnussen	Haas VF-18	Ferrari 062 EVO	1–5	Championship
22		McLaren-Renault		Jenson Button	McLaren MCL33	Renault R.E.18	3	Championship
27		Renault		Nico Hulkenberg	Renault R.S.18	Renault R.E.18	1–5	Championship
28		Scuderia Toro Rosso-Honda		Brendon Hartley	Scuderia Toro Rosso STR13	Honda RA618H	1–5	Championship
31		Force India-Mercedes		Esteban Ocon	Force India VJM11	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+	1–5	Championship
33		Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer		Max Verstappen	Red Bull Racing RB14	TAG Heuer	1–5	Championship
35		Williams-Mercedes		Sergey Sirotkin	Williams FW40	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+	1–5	Championship
44		Mercedes		Lewis Hamilton	Mercedes AMG F1 W09 EQ Power+	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+	1–5	Championship
55		Renault		Carlos Sainz Jr.	Renault R.S.18	Renault R.E.18	1–5	Championship
77		Mercedes		Valtteri Bottas	Mercedes AMG F1 W09 EQ Power+	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+	1–5	Championship
34		Force India-Mercedes		Alfonso Celis Jr.	Force India VJM11	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+	3	Free practice
41		Williams-Mercedes		Robert Kubica	Williams FW40	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+	2, 4	Free practice
50		Haas-Ferrari		Antonio Giovinazzi	Haas VF-18	Ferrari 062 EVO	3–4	Free practice

Note that I split the columns with flags into two - to allow sorting by country or by entrant/driver name and I added a column for for entry type to avoid the mid-table full-width headings (obviously the content could be abbreviated here). I also removed the need for the "nowrap" on long values by applying a nowrap style at the top. The clear benefit to the reader is that they can sort the table any way they like. What are the disadvantages? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

This is interesting, though I see some problems with it, especially if we were to include practice drivers. Just imagine the complexity of a table like that in, for instance, the 1970 championship. Drivers racing different cars, not just in between races, but also in between practice and race and drivers being entered for practice only, sometimes in F2 cars depending on what season we are talking about. I think that is actually the main reason why there is so much highlight on constructors in the current table, since the cars can change and that is easier to display if you put the teams first. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@DeFacto:

"What are the disadvantages?"

It's not clear who is a "championship" driver and who is a "free practice" driver until you get to the far right column, which is compounded by the way the table is too wide for mobile and tablet readers (even without nowraps; we use nowraps to force everything onto one line and make it easier to read). The sortable function isn't available to mobile or tablet editors either.

Why would anyone benefit from sorting by nationality? There is no "nations cup" where drivers score points for their home countries. If someone really needs the sortable function to see which drivers are French or German or Tajikistani, I think they've got bigger problems than needing the sortable function. And that's the biggest problem with it: it literally adds nothing to the table. The reader does not get any added benefit from sorting the table by column; it doesn't reveal anything that can't be discerned from the default setting. It feels like you have applied it for the sake of applying it.

@Zwerg nase:

"Just imagine the complexity of a table like that in, for instance, the 1970 championship."

The current proposal is that this is only applied to articles from 2014 on when the championship introduced permanent, non-sequential numbers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

That should be pinging @Zwerg Nase:. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: Well, I guess then we are at my old point that I would prefer a consistent layout for all articles. But I have lost this fight before, so... Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of keeping something for the sake of consistency. Having consistency between articles is generally a good thing, but if it is in the interests of an individual article to do something differently, then it should at least be considered, if not implemented. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: but none of those are specifically disadvantages of the table being sortable, they are disadvantages of using specific apps on mobile devices - whether the table is sortable or not. Sorting and sideways scrolling work perfectly well on all my mobile devices. The point about the entry type column being too far over is easily correctable by moving it further left, and possibly abbreviating the content. The ability to sort a table is generally considered to be a good thing, and there is no point suppressing the sort on any of the logically sortable columns - whether you can personally see a need to sort by nationality or not. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Your argument amounts to "we should do it because we can", which is a terrible argument. You haven't actually said what benefit the sorting actually offers, either. Like I said, it doesn't tell the reader anything that the default version already does. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: it is far from being "because we can". Being able to sort a table is one of the key benefits of using tables in Wikipedia - see MOS:TABLES and specifically WP:WHENTABLE. Sorting allows the reader to analyse and compare data in a way that is impossible with a static table. It costs very little to add and delivers huge benefits. Can you think of any disadvantages of adding sorting? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes: it doesn't add anything. You say it "allows the reader to analyse and compare data in a way that is impossible with a static table", but can you cite any specific examples of how that might work? Furthermore, you say that "being able to sort a table is one of the key benefits of using tables in Wikipedia - see MOS:TABLES and specifically WP:WHENTABLE", but given the number of tables that we regularly use across the WikiProject, why hasn't the sortable function been applied across those tables? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: well it does add a richness and usability for those readers who are used to digital, rather than print, information - did you read WP:WHENTABLE? OTOH, as you don't seem to be able to think of an actual disadvantage I cannot see why you wouldn't want to embrace it. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

As I said, it adds nothing. And you don't seem to be able to offer any insight as to what it does add beyond paraphrasing policies. I want a specific example of the advantages of sorting this table and an explanation of why the sortable function has not been more widely-adopted by the WikiProject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: Well, actually the very fact that the core of this section's debate is how to sort the table I'm honestly amazed how you can't see the answer to your question that's right in front of you. cherkash (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm really not a fan of this proposal. If anything, it makes it much more difficult to read (there is twice as much text as before). Lots of stuff is unnecessarily duplicated (chassis names, entrant names, power unit names). Splitting the flags of in separate columns makes it less clear for the lay reader what their function is. The table shown above is even hardly smaller in size than what we currently have. All in all, it puts undue emphasis on the numbers, which don't even have an effect on the championships. They're just a means of identification. I really can't see what's so problematic with our current format that would necessitate such a massive overhaul and ditching of a basic format that is actually used across all wikis. 2016 Formula One World Championship has recently been promoted to Good Article with the current format in use. So it really can't be that ununderstandable. If there is a general belief that there is undue or confusing highlighting of the constructors' column I would suggest to simply remove said highlighting or move the column to be the leftmost one in the table.Tvx1 21:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is the sortable one taking account of some of the comments above - Entrant type moved to the left and condensed (but with tooltips), flag columns merged back in:

T	No.	Entrant	Driver	Chassis	Power unit	Rounds
C	2	McLaren-Renault	Stoffel Vandoorne	McLaren MCL33	Renault R.E.18	1–5
C	3	Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer	Daniel Ricciardo	Red Bull Racing RB14	TAG Heuer	1–5
C	5	Ferrari	Sebastian Vettel	Ferrari SF71H	Ferrari 062 EVO	1–5
C	7	Ferrari	Kimi Räikkönen	Ferrari SF71H	Ferrari 062 EVO	1–5
C	8	Haas-Ferrari	Romain Grosjean	Haas VF-18	Ferrari 062 EVO	1–5
C	9	Sauber-Ferrari	Marcus Ericsson	Sauber C37	Ferrari 062 EVO	1–5
C	10	Scuderia Toro Rosso-Honda	Pierre Gasly	Scuderia Toro Rosso STR13	Honda RA618H	1–5
C	11	Force India-Mercedes	Sergio Perez	Force India VJM11	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+	1–5
C	14	McLaren-Renault	Fernando Alonso	McLaren MCL33	Renault R.E.18	1–2, 4–5
C	16	Sauber-Ferrari	Charles Leclerc	Sauber C37	Ferrari 062 EVO	1–5
C	18	Williams-Mercedes	Lance Stroll	Williams FW40	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+	1–5
C	20	Haas-Ferrari	Kevin Magnussen	Haas VF-18	Ferrari 062 EVO	1–5
C	22	McLaren-Renault	Jenson Button	McLaren MCL33	Renault R.E.18	3
C	27	Renault	Nico Hulkenberg	Renault R.S.18	Renault R.E.18	1–5
C	28	Scuderia Toro Rosso-Honda	Brendon Hartley	Scuderia Toro Rosso STR13	Honda RA618H	1–5
C	31	Force India-Mercedes	Esteban Ocon	Force India VJM11	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+	1–5
C	33	Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer	Max Verstappen	Red Bull Racing RB14	TAG Heuer	1–5
C	35	Williams-Mercedes	Sergey Sirotkin	Williams FW40	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+	1–5
C	44	Mercedes	Lewis Hamilton	Mercedes AMG F1 W09 EQ Power+	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+	1–5
C	55	Renault	Carlos Sainz Jr.	Renault R.S.18	Renault R.E.18	1–5
C	77	Mercedes	Valtteri Bottas	Mercedes AMG F1 W09 EQ Power+	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+	1–5
F	34	Force India-Mercedes	Alfonso Celis Jr.	Force India VJM11	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+	3
F	41	Williams-Mercedes	Robert Kubica	Williams FW40	Mercedes M09 EQ Power+	2, 4
F	50	Haas-Ferrari	Antonio Giovinazzi	Haas VF-18	Ferrari 062 EVO	3–4

Thoughts? @Prisonermonkeys: surely the advantages of being able to sort on any column are obvious - it's great to be able to sort on engine and see easily who is using which and similarly it makes it quick and easy to find your favourite driver or team or car number or chassis by simply sorting that column. With no apparent disadvantages, surely sortable is the way forward. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

All of those "advantages" can also be obtained by simply reading the table in its default state. It's clearly something that has been shoehorned in for the sake of having it under the flimsy pretext of satisfying WP:WHENTABLE which, despite your insistence of its significance, has never been an issue at WP:F1.

Also for some reason the text and flag icons are overlapping. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: as it's free and you are apparently unable to offer any actual disadvantages, then let's go with sortable - assuming that your proposed new table layout is accepted. All the examples I give are valid and viable uses of sort, which make the task much easier and more satisfying to perform. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, as you should know, minor text formatting glitches can be fixed, so don't worry about them. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

(P.S. I've inserted the necessary bloat required if flags and texts are used next to each other in the same cell now - is that better? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC) )

No, I'm opposed to the sorting function. It's unnecessary, complex, and last time it was used it was do unwieldy that it was quickly abandoned. Furthermore, you haven't even attempted to explain why the sorting function is not used at all within the scope of WP:F1 despite your extolling the supposed advantages of it. I would rather stay with the current table format than adopt this bloated and unnecessary mess. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't really abandoned. We simply just forgot to adapt the 2016 table from it's pre-season setting to its in-season sortability-including setting. I will also note that you were one of the biggest supporters of using sorting when we implemented it back in 2014.Tvx1 12:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — I'm sorry, when did we go back in time by four years? Sure, I supported it then, but why does that matter now? I'm allowed to change my mind. This isn't the first time you have done this, by the way. Please stop dredging up years-old discussions to point out a person's opinion that may no longer be applicable and presenting it as if you expect them to keep upholding it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: none of the reasons you gave for opposing a sortable table are to do with it's appearance to, usage by or value to the reader, they are to do with your misunderstanding of how to edit them. They are no more complex and are not significantly more bloated than the non-sortable tables, yet offer huge usability benefits to the reader. And I guess the reason sortables haven't been used before in F1 articles is because of the complexity of many of the other tables - tables with multi-row and/or multi-column cells are not readily or logically sortable. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I have made it perfectly clear what the issue is: it adds nothing of value. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: no you have not. You may have offered that as your personal opinion, but you have not supported it. OTOH I have shown reasons to add it to improve the reader experience and in conformity with the MOS. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you haven't. You have just cited some guidelines and claimed that because the guidelines recommend it, the benefit must be there. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

DeFacto quite patently has. You have merely offered your personal opinion.Tvx1 14:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

No, he hasn't. The best that he has managed to do it cite some guidelines and suggest that the reader can better understand the table if they can sort it as if it is somehow unreadable without the ability to sort it.

All of this is moot, since there clearly isn't a consensus to change the table format. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Off course it doesn't add anything. No-one expects it to. Making something sortable never adds content. It simply increases the functionality of the table.Tvx1 10:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

And given that the sortable function has not been applied to any other tables, whatever benefits it may offer are questionable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I don’t really know which other tables it would be consider for. The calendar certainly doesn’t need sortability.Tvx1 14:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I've already named some of them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced by the need for a change at all. The main argument appears to be size. However the above proposals need just as much horizontal scrolling on a small mobile screen than what we currently have. To make matters worse, the proposed tables have a bigger vertical size. The only remaining "advantage" it would have is that numbers would be arranged sequentially. I don't see the need for this however. Numbers are merely a means of identification and have no impact on the championships. Pre-2014 we arranged them sequentially because we could so despite pairing the drivers with their teams. Even then off-sequence numbers regularly appeared (e.g. in 1984). And we even used the current basic format without numbers. I just don't see how the proposed format improves anything.Tvx1 12:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the propsed table but I don't think it is necessary to include all the practise drivers within it.SSSB (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• The benefit of sorting number by number don't prevail the disadvantages of the proposed format, which omits official name of the entrants and makes the false impression that the entrant name is the same as the name of constructor. And also don't get why cars were separated from constructors with driver column which was separated from the number and round column. Also the case with Hartley shows that the proposed table is less comfortable to read than the current version. Corvus tristis (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

If a driver misses a grand prix this format of table makes it a lot harder to see who had replaced them. SSSB (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Races redirect to season

Why do the grand prix which are due to take place this year redirect to the 2018 season, surely it would be better if these links gave information about when the grand prix is about to take place, defending winner etc. 81.102.239.214 (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

They will once the races are near enough.Tvx1 17:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

If there is sufficient detail about the race—detail that could only be included in a race report, not a championship article or Grand Prix overview—then creating the article in advance is justified. But it needs to be more than the date and location of the race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Modena (racing team)

Why "Modena (racing team)" and not "Modena Team"? --Adriel 00 (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Because there is also Modena F.C. a football club could also be referred to as a team. SSSB (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

1951 Swiss Grand Prix

Sources disagree about which drivers were entered in the #46 and #48 Gordinis at the 1951 Swiss Grand Prix. Editors who might be able to provide enlightenment are welcome to participate in the existing discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)