Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One/Archive 53

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ArchiveĀ 50ArchiveĀ 51ArchiveĀ 52ArchiveĀ 53ArchiveĀ 54ArchiveĀ 55ArchiveĀ 56

Section headings for drivers who drive for multiple teams in a season.

Currently a drivers Formula One carrer is set out in the following way (taken from Charles Leclerc):

Formula One
Test driver (2016-2017)
2016
2017
Sauber (2018)
Ferrari (2019-)
2019
2020

I.e we prioritise team over season and in this case it is fine. However in instances where a driver changes team mid-season we get this (taken from Max Verstappen):

Formula One career
Scuderia Toro Rosso (2014ā€“2016)
2014 season
2015 season: Youngest full time driver
2016 season
Red Bull (2016ā€“present)
2016 season: Youngest race winner
2017 season
2018 season
2019 season
2020 season

And this is where the problem arises. In my mind Formula One (or indeed any sport) is defined by the season much more than the team and yet we've split up the 2016 season (a level 4 header) across two level 3 headers. To me it makes no sense to split up a drivers season just because he was promoted/demoted in said season. His season just carries on where it left off., the only thing that has changed is that he is in a different car, he still caries over his points tally and his championship position.

I have 2 possible ways to deal with this (both of which I boldly implemented at Pierre Gasly and Alexander Albon but were reverted for no reason by an IP) although I am open to other suggestions:

Option 1

Formula One career
Scuderia Toro Rosso (2014ā€“2015)
2014 season
2015 season: Youngest full time driver
2016 season
Red Bull and Toro Rosso (2016) Youngest race winner
Red Bull (2017-present)
2017 season
2018 season
2019 season
2020 season

This keeps the team headings but still keeps the 2016 season together.

Or

Option 2

Formula One career
2014 season
2015 season: Youngest full time driver
2016 season: Youngest race winner
2017 season
2018 season
2019 season
2020 season

Where we get rid of specifing teams completly.

Like I said this changes only need to be implemted to drivers who changed teams mid-season to keep their season efforts toghether under one heading. I would support option 1 over option 2 but only because it is similar to what we have now and with drivers whose article won't need changing and I do see the benefit of grouping thier efforts under one team under one heading.
SSSB (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, Option 1 is the better choice for maintaining the team headings without splitting seasons.
5225C (talk) 02:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd go with option 2 because each year is self-contained. Even if a driver stays with a team for multiple years, each individual year has little to no measurable effect on subsequent years. It would also help in the case of high-profile driver articles like Schumacher, Vettel and Hamilton where they won multiple titles with the same team. Grouping Hamilton's Mercedes career under one sub-heading could get messy quuckly.
That being said, I could get behind a hybrid option: organised by team for most drivers, but organised by year in special circumstances (ie multiple World Champions, or an extended stay with a particular team). While I appreciate the desire for a consistent format across articles with a similar topic, I can also see that getting in the way at times. Organising an article based on the year might benefit Vettel's article while organising by team might benefit Ericsson's. Does that mean we should organise Ericsson's article by year because Vettel's article does it, or that we should organise Vettel's article by team because it Ericsson's article does it? I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all solution here, but rather a one-size-fits-most approach. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Mclarenfan17. Certain drivers will lend themselves to different layouts and so I don't think prescribing a particular layout would be of any benefit. Go with whatever works best for a given driver. Consistency for consistency sake is self-defeating. A7V2 (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@A7V2 and Mclarenfan17: I agree completely. However, I came here because I tried to adopt that philosophy over at Pierre Gasly and Alexander Albon and was reverted. Due to being reverted I am mostly here to gain some consensus to adopt the above suggestions at those articles.
SSSB (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I think in their cases since they switched teams during a season and, as McLarenfan points out, each season is more or less self contained, option 2 is most suitable. A7V2 (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I would definitely suggest that switching teams mid-championship would warrant structuring the article by year rather than by team. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I've been wondering wether we couldn't simply keep the existing system by simply removing the word "season" from the section headings. That way we would no longer give the impression we are splitting season in parts.Tvx1 22:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
no longer give the impression we are splitting season in parts. - how does that solve the problem? A drivers season campaign would still be cut in half because of an event which is doesn't affect the continuation of his/her Championship. It's not about the impression but about the fact its actually happening.
SSSB (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC) It
No it wouldn't. Because then we would simply be going by years. And in the above case for instance, Verstappen did drive for Toro Rosso and Red Bull Racing during 2016. It's just much less confusing without the word "season" in those titles.Tvx1 18:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see how the addition/removal of the word season changes anything. For the current Verstappen article it would produce:

Formula One career
Scuderia Toro Rosso (2014ā€“2016)
2014
2015: Youngest full time driver
2016
Red Bull (2016ā€“present)
2016: Youngest race winner
2017
2018
2019
2020

Then his 2016 season is still split between two headers which is exactly the problem we have if we keep the word season there. Grouping his championship campaign together is more important than grouping his activities by team which is the problem I am trying to solve, removing the word season doesn't change this.
SSSB (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Detailed explanation of what happens to each driver race-by-race should not be written in biographical articles. This sort of information belong in race articles. Formula One driver articles are substantially over-written. In wikipedia driver bios should be written as a season summary not race-by-race with individual events only highlighted if they are particularly notable. --Falcadore (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Falcadore, I know and agree, but that doesn't awnser the question I'm asking.
SSSB (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Well I'm suggesting the words should be redistrubuted, but to answer specifically, both or neither. It depends on the driver. Some drivers flit around from team to team achieving nothing of great note. "Early years" or "Later years". Perhaps only their time at one team is fantastically notable. Alan Jones for example. He raced for seven to nine teams but apart from one race for Shadow only his time at Williams is important. Jacques Villeneuve's F1 history is Williams, BAR, then everyone else in a single chapter. --Falcadore (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@Falcadore: - again, I agree, but I am asking specifically about Albon and Gasly because whenever i tried to apply one of the above suggestions (following the depends on the driver mindset) I am being reverted by an IP who seemingly disagrees with the depends on the driver mindset. So I am trying to gain consensus for changing the order on those two. By no stretch of the imagination am I suggesting we apply this to every driver.
SSSB (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

What to do when a race is cancelled

In the past few hours, I have noticed an anomaly emerging. Editors on the 2020 championship article consider the Australian Grand Prix to have gone ahead (all drivers are listed as taking part in round 1)ā€”but some editors at the race article suggest that the race did not take place (see here). We need some consistencies across the articles. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

We can consider this from two perspectitives, logically and according to sources. Now the race did not take place, that is true. However, the Grand Prix is not defined as only being the race, it is the whole weekend. The AUS Grand Prix weekend had started. Therefore the race weekend did take place, if only in part (which is why 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix is not a suitable guide). Therefore logic dictates that the Grand Prix should take the place of round 1.
If we consider sources we should seek the highest authority. My first thought was the official F1 website. They consider AUS to be round 1, but they also still say that CHN will be round 4, so... My next port of call was fia website's calendar. They also still list AUS as round 1 (but acknowledge that CHN was postponed). These are the highest authority sources there are on the matter. It is therefore clear to me that AUS still takes its place as round 1.
SSSB (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
How we're treating it now seems fine to me. However, if races are reinstated after being cancelled, that could pose a much greater problem.
5225C (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
If we consider the March 2020 event to have run we will have to list it twice in the calendar. If we don't consider it to have run we deal with it in the same way as 2020 Chinese Grand Prix.
SSSB (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
That's not really what I was trying to point out. I was just trying to highlight the way the race was being treated differently in different articles. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
All we can do is add these pages on our watchlists and make sure they stay consistant. Unless you want (and there is sufficent content changes) to request page protection.
SSSB (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I think it depends on whether or not the cancelled event remains a part of the calendar. If so, we will have to list it twice, but if not we can simply update the article and remove the cancelled event from the championship standings.
5225C (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Why would we have to list an event twice? Surely if e.g. the Chinese Grand Prix were held later in the season, we simply only list it once where it actually took place.Tvx1 13:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Tvx1:, becuase officially there was an Australian Grand Prix which happened this weekend as it was only cancelled after the weekend began
SSSB (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Because the AUSGP was cancelled and the CHNGP was postponed. Cancelled implied the event was going to take place and then did not., while postponed means delayed. If the cancelled GP is later removed as an official round, then yes, I'd say we remove it, but if the FIA and F1 continue to treat the cancelled event as a round then so must we.
5225C (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm of the opinion that since no session ever started, nor were any laps turned, that the event never happened. Supercars and S5000 had sessions, so for them it's a normal "cancelled before race completion" setup. Obviously, the best solution is to determine what the FIA and F1 websites do to the statistics of the drivers that arrived for the weekend; but in the absence of any of that so far, treat the race weekend as if it was never even scheduled in the first place. šŸ‡®šŸ‡Ŗ TheChrisD {šŸ’¬|āœļø} 13:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
TheChrisD, we have [1] and [2] which suggest that the Grand Prix took place officially
SSSB (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Those pages also suggest Bahrain and Vietnam are still going on, despite the very recent postponement announcement. We shouldn't treat them as gospel until they're updated to reflect recent changes (basically, WP:AGE MATTERS). šŸ‡®šŸ‡Ŗ TheChrisD {šŸ’¬|āœļø} 14:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, but right now that's the best we got.
SSSB (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
As a personal appreciation, I think there is a big difference between canceling (or postponing, that doesn't matter) a month before and canceling with all the teams (McLaren left voluntarily) a few hours before the start of the official sections. I think that difference should be marked in the articles. --Adriel 00 (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Since it's now looking like many events will be cancelled and/or rescheduled, perhaps from the perspective of showing the schedule and points tables a good solution would be to follow what was done on 1992 World Sportscar Championship: have two separate schedules, one the original, and one the actual, and then for points tables only include the events which do run. (I'm not going to give an opinion on how the Australian GP should appear in the tables or not given what some above have said about it being cancelled once it had started or not). A7V2 (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I suggested something similar here:
Schedule of events
Round Grand Prix Circuit Race date
Races cancelled due to COVID-19 pandemic
1 ā€“ Australian Grand Prix Australia Albert Park Circuit, Melbourne ā€”
2 ā€“ Bahrain Grand Prix Bahrain Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir ā€”
3 ā€“ Vietnamese Grand Prix Vietnam Hanoi Street Circuit, Hanoi ā€”
4 ā€“ Dutch Grand Prix Netherlands Circuit Zandvoort, Zandvoort ā€”
5 ā€“ Spanish Grand Prix Spain Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, MontmelĆ³ ā€”
6 ā€“ Monaco Grand Prix Monaco Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo ā€”
Revised calendar issued after pandemic declared over
7 1 Azerbaijan Grand Prix Azerbaijan Baku City Circuit, Baku 7 June
8 2 Canadian Grand Prix Canada Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, MontrƩal 14 June
9 3 French Grand Prix France Circuit Paul Ricard, Le Castellet 28 June
10 4 Austrian Grand Prix Austria Red Bull Ring, Spielberg 5 July
It's not perfect, but I think it works. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I hadn't seen your proposal there. Yes I think that would work well. A7V2 (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It just needs some tinkering. Especially with races having two round numbers. Maybe I'm breaking my own cardinal rule of table design and having the table do too much that should be carried out by prose.

Schedule of events
Round Grand Prix Circuit Race date
Races cancelled due to COVID-19 pandemic
ā€“ Australian Grand Prix Australia Albert Park Circuit, Melbourne ā€”
ā€“ Bahrain Grand Prix Bahrain Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir ā€”
ā€“ Vietnamese Grand Prix Vietnam Hanoi Street Circuit, Hanoi ā€”
ā€“ Dutch Grand Prix Netherlands Circuit Zandvoort, Zandvoort ā€”
ā€“ Spanish Grand Prix Spain Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, MontmelĆ³ ā€”
ā€“ Monaco Grand Prix Monaco Circuit de Monaco, Monte Carlo ā€”
Revised calendar issued after pandemic declared over
1 Azerbaijan Grand Prix Azerbaijan Baku City Circuit, Baku 7 June
2 Canadian Grand Prix Canada Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, MontrƩal 14 June
3 French Grand Prix France Circuit Paul Ricard, Le Castellet 28 June
4 Austrian Grand Prix Austria Red Bull Ring, Spielberg 5 July

That would make it easier to add cancelled rounds back in. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

That could work, but I would prefer to use a formatting similar to the aforementioned sportscar example.Tvx1 17:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@Tvx1: the problem there is that it requires a lot of duplication of content. The size of the article is going to balloon pretty rapidly for what might only amount to a small difference. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
There wouldn't be that much duplication. Mostly the column headers. And looking at the average length of our season article and what are generally the longest sections, there is quite some margin before the calendar section would balloon. This is exceptional and unprecedented situation and with four races already cancelled or postponed it is no longer a small difference. Using the sportscar example would not be undue here.Tvx1 16:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I think that if none of the races are rescheduled the most suitable case would be the first option Mclarenfan presented. However if any of the event's are rescheduled we would want to look at relpicating the sport's car example as the clearest way to present the new calendar.
SSSB (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
What was done in the 1955 article where a bunch of races were cancelled. Maybe this is not something to be tabluated but written? --Falcadore (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
If the all postponed events end up cancelled then that would be best. But isn't this imparactical if the events are successfully rescheduled. Then a secnd table would be the clearest way to present the 'new' calander.
SSSB (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata item merging

I have noticed that the subjects Alfa Romeo in Formula One, Honda in Formula One, Mercedes-Benz in Formula One and Renault in Formula One (there might be others too) have two separate Wikidata items, meaning that, for example, it's not possible to go from the English page to the German page on the Mercedes F1 article. Should those Wikidata items on these subjects be merged so that is possible? Carfan568 (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I would expect three different teams to have three different articles and three different Wikidata entries,if thatā€™s what you mean.
5225C (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Should those Wikidata items on these subjects be merged so that is possible? yes they should be together, what you have to do is manually remove them all from one and then add them back onto the other.
SSSB (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@5225C: I think he is asking whether Alfa Romeo in Formula One should share a wikidata entry with its german equivilant.
SSSB (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
But part if the problem is that, taking Alfa Romeo in Formula One as an example, the German's (for example) don't have a equivilant, they include it as part of Alfa Romeo in motorsport which are linked through wikidata. Therefore it is not possible to link Alfa Romeo in Formula One to its German equivilant as it doesn't exist.
SSSB (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
If thatā€™s what Carfan568 means, absolutely, but that isnā€™t a ā€œmergeā€, itā€™s simply adding data to the Wikidata entry.
5225C (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@5225C: I think what Carfan is getting at is that there are 2 wikidata entries for the same article, I've come across this before as well. Thats what he means by merging (although this is just a hunch).
But part of the problem is that, taking Alfa Romeo in Formula One as an example, the German wikipedia (for example) don't have a equivilant, they include it as part of Alfa Romeo in motorsport which are linked through wikidata. Therefore it is not possible to link Alfa Romeo in Formula One to its German equivilant as it doesn't exist.
SSSB (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
So to clarify:
1. Articles for the for the same topic have different scopes on different Wikipediaā€™s (F1 vs. motorsport)
2. Wikidata entries exist for both articles
3. The articles should be linked but canā€™t because of the different scope
5225C (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Partly yes, for some articles they can't be merged becuase articles have different scopes such as the Alfa Romeo example above. But for others there are 2 entries on wikidata for an article with the same scope that need to be merged. I just did the one for Mercedes. ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSB (talk ā€¢ contribs) 13:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I meant that that there are 2 Wikidata entries for the same article. The German Alfa article seems to cover other motorsport series as well, so that's why it's linked to the "Alfa Romeo in motorsport" Wikidata item, but there are 2 Wikidata entries for their F1 involvement: Q622489 and Q65960697. Carfan568 (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for pointing out that last one, I'd missed it. I've merged them and have done the equivilant for the other ones you listed at the top of this page (Mercedes, Honda and Renault). If there are any I missed feel free to come back to me.
SSSB (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your work. I'm not sure, but maybe BMW Sauber and BMW in Formula One could be merged. Carfan568 (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd be cuatious about that one. It is basiclly the Alfa Romeo in Formula One situation for Germany but applied to our wiki and to more articles.
SSSB (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Also English Wiki has a page in both wikidata entries.
SSSB (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Eurohunter has reverted those merges, saying that "Formula One team is not the same as whole activity in F1 (team, engine supplier, sponsor)". However most of the "team" articles that I went to seemed to also cover the engine history, or were stub, so is this really necessary? Also, does "F1" next to the company's name in the title mean that it's just covering the team? Carfan568 (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

WD has practice to not mess different items like above. Eurohunter (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
If you look at BMW there are even separate entries for "BMW Motorsport" (motorsport division name) and for BMW in motorsport which include "BMW Motorsport" and other BMW divisions in motorsport. Please do not mess them. There are also BMW in Formula One and BMW Sauber articles. Eurohunter (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, look for example at the Japanese pages of Renault, Honda and Mercedes, their names are just F1 next to the company name and the articles cover all of their history in F1, but they are linked to the "team" Wikidata items. The same situation exists for multiple other languages. Should the Wikidata items then be properly organised, so that articles which cover all of their history in F1 are linked to the "in Formula One" item and articles which cover just the team are linked to the "team" item? Carfan568 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: could you answer the question above? Carfan568 (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I think I have given more than enough time to answer now, and since there is no evidence of disagreement, I will organise the items according to their content. Carfan568 (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

DSQ's and DN(P)Q's in race results tables

I know, this is probably a stupid question, but... I know this is also on other articles too, but shouldnā€™t Michael Schumacher with the DSQ be classified after all the DNF drivers? I donā€™t know if it was a rule back then to put the DSQ drivers before the DNFed ones. I know thatā€™s what they do modernly, you can see from 2019 Japanese Grand Prix that both Renaults are DSQ but classified after Max Verstappen. The official website does not even classify him in the results page. FORMULA1FAN71 (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@FORMULA1FAN71: yes he should. I just moved it to the bottom. Remember you can be WP:BOLD next time.
SSSB (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@SSSB: Hmmm, well, maybe I should have checked the source, itā€™s an archive to the old F1 site from 2014. There, it states the DSQ was indeed placed before the DNFā€™ed people, and it also lists the DNQ people in the results part. All of the other articles from 1994 follow this pattern. BUT, the modern, updated F1.com lists the results as you changed them. Question: A. Should we update every race from this year with the circumstances used here while using a citation from the modern website, or B. Should we revert these standings to the original and keep the citations the same. FORMULA1FAN71 (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@FORMULA1FAN71: well consistancy from article to article is not needed, we are also under no obligation to format our results the same way as the source. But I would support changing all the results to reflect the situation at the current F1 website. The thing is that different sources present the results a different way. StatsF1 lists Schumacher at the top becuase he finished the race first and was only disqualified later. Both these sources are equally valid to cite the results table on this page. This only adds to the notion that we don't need to present it in the same way as any source so long as the article as a whole presents the same information (even if its in a different way).
Therefore we can keep the article as it is without changing the source (although I would support replacing the source with a non archived version as the current version of the source presents more information better (in my opinion)). And I would support making the same changes everywhere else.
SSSB (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@SSSB: Thatā€™s great. I will change the sources if I can. But I do not know how to change the tables as that is in markup and I can only use the vis editor FORMULA1FAN71 (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@SSSB: @FORMULA1FAN71: No disrespect intended, but I think this discussion needs to continue on the WP:F1 talk page (if it hasn't done so already, of course).
I'm still not completely on board with non-qualifiers being removed from the race results tables. Nor am I completely on board with all disqualified drivers (both during the race, like Mansell at the 1989 and 1991 Portuguese GPs, and after it) being listed after the drivers who retired.
I think we should seek the opinions of more than just two users. And the best way for that to happen is for this discussion to continue on the WP:F1 talk page (again, if it hasn't done so already). 80.233.50.63 (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe it has. It definitly hasn't recently. Feel free to take it there.
SSSB (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Or better still. Place an advertisment for this discussion there. WOuld you mind explaining why you prefer it the way you do (barring in mind what has been said above).
SSSB (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@SSSB: @FORMULA1FAN71: Ever since I first looked at Wikipedia's F1 race articles - which was a considerably long time ago - it seems to me to have always been the style that the non-qualifiers (and non-pre-qualifiers where applicable) are listed at the bottom of the race results table, and drivers that were disqualified during the race are listed before the drivers that had already retired from the race at that point (and, obviously, after the drivers that retired later on in the race). In other words, I've come to see it as the status quo.
So removing the non-qualifiers and non-pre-qualifiers from these tables - and grouping all the disqualified drivers together - feels to me like a pretty seismic change in that status quo, and hence I feel it should be discussed on the WP:F1 talk page. Making these big changes based on the opinions of just two users feels plain wrong - I for one would certainly like to know the opinions of the other users who frequently edit F1 race articles, like User:Falcadore, User:GTHO and User:DH85868993. Otherwise, it just comes across as two users editing these articles to suit themselves and maybe one or two others, which isn't good, is it?
Call all this whatever synonym of "testicles" you so desire, if you feel so compelled ("sloblock" is my preferred choice, BTW), but it genuinely is how I feel.Ā :) ChupoKlasky1991 (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@ChupoKlasky1991: I honestly do not mind about the DNQ/DNPQ stuff being in the race results, but I do feel it is unnecessary even as that has come across as the norm. They haven't participated in a race they weren't allowed to take part in, so why should they be mentioned. As for DSQ placement, that should and would most likely stay where it is at the back. If you look at the most recent DSQs: 2014 Australian Grand Prix, 2015 Brazilian Grand Prix, 2018 Italian Grand Prix, 2018 United States Grand Prix, and as previously mentioned 2019 Japanese Grand Prix. All of these have drivers disqualified and placed at the back. I feel that if this was discussed more, no action would be taken to place because these articles are made up to recent standards that would've already been discussed. That would also make this article more up to date with the placement. FORMULA1FAN71 (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@ChupoKlasky1991:, this way of dealing with DNQ's is also the current standard and how it was dealt with the last time we had DNQ's (2011 Australian Grand Prix and 2012 Australian Grand Prix). I also dispute that this is a seismic change. They are still in the other tables. I also don't think it makes any sense to add DNQ's into race results given they aren't even allowed to particpate in the race. But I will add an advertisment to this discussion on WT:F1
SSSB (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Consistency for this isn't necessary. In "modern" times yes, DSQs are usually placed after the DNFs but that isn't how things used to be done. DSQs usually occured due to technicalities like recieved unauthorised outside assistance as opposed to running an inelligible car. And many period sources list something like "DNF" with the reason given as "Disqualified" at least in certain circumstances. Anyway I think it's fine to do it here, but in general this isn't something which should be applied to all articles just based on the F1 website. A7V2 (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The function of disqualification is you have been punished. Disqualified. Dis. You have been removed from the race entirely. Your lap times are not eligible for lap records or fastest lap points. When you are a DNF you at least had laps recorded. You can still get the lap record. You have made an honest attempt to race, or at least your level of dishonesty remains undiscovered. Disqualified goes at the end. Always. You got caught, you are removed from having participated. --Falcadore (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The above was copy and pasted from Talk:1994 Belgian Grand Prix

@Falcadore: "Disqualified goes at the end. Always."
I take it that this means all disqualified drivers? Both those who were disqualified after the race, for fuel irregularities or because their cars were underweight or whatever, and those who were disqualified during the race, because they reversed in the pits (like Nigel Mansell at the 1989 Portuguese GP) or had their car worked on in the pit lane (like Mansell at the 1991 Portuguese GP) or whatever? ChupoKlasky1991 (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
There are not degrees of disqualification - or to use the modern variation, exclusion. It is DSQ or EXC, not DSQ* or DSQ1 or DSQ-Post race, just DSQ. Do not look for distinctions or complications which do not exist. --Falcadore (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Tables and table symbology should never be used to describe what should be in the race report prose. If you feel the standard terms of DNF, DSQ, EXC, DNS etc do not adequately describe events then the race report is at fault (presumably it is under-written), not the results tables. This is why INJ was removed from tables years ago as inappropriate. Sentences belong in the race reports, not the table. This also includes the increasing use of footnotes for tables. Tables summarise, they do not detail. --Falcadore (talk) 06:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@Falcadore: Maybe in more recent years but in the past this simply wasn't true. For example, Moss was disqualified from the 1959 French Grand Prix but did recieve one point for fastest lap. And in this particular article the current table has Moss after all the "Ret"s but I think should be placed above the DNFs (since none completed as many laps) but still below all classified finishers even though some completed fewer laps. A7V2 (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@Falcadore: No need to get shirty just because you disagree that there is any kind of distinction between disqualifications after the race and disqualifications during the race (though one thing we can agree on is that the latter are much rarer compared to the former).
Still eager to hear what the likes of User:DH85868993 and User:GTHO think. This discussion could go on a while yet. ChupoKlasky1991 (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Do not confuse direct clear language with "shirty". Do not get unneccesarily emotional without any foundation for it. Stay on topic. --Falcadore (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
May I suggest A7V2 that comparing one race to another is only academic in nature as only the results of one race appear in each table. What happens in a race in 1959 compared to 1992 are not practically relevant as the two races do not appear in the same table. While I find the Moss example curious and contradictory to my language it doesn't contradict my point. DSQ is a penalty. DSQs at the end.
I would further love to see if there is an actual distinction of when a disqualification or exclusion is applied (during vs after) as I have never previously seen any official distinction between the two other than timing. The effect has always been the same. If that is not the case curiosity compels me to want to read it. --Falcadore (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
There is no distinction between penalties applied during the race and after and you have to provided any evidence to suggest this may be the case. The fact that Moss was allowed to keep his fastest lap point has nothing to do with when he was disqualified but rather why.
SSSB (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@Falcadore: Well, if that's going to be your attitude, then maybe I'm just wasting my time taking part in this discussion.
I absolutely respect other people's opinions, no matter how different they are from mine. I do not like it, though, when other people display snobby attitudes for no valid reason - and I like it even less when they also feel compelled to tell others what to do. What has happened to democracy and good old-fashioned respect in discussions? Have Facebook, Twitter and Br*x*t made it that acceptable to be disrespectful, snobby, mean and even nasty when disagreeing with others' opinions, anywhere?
Well, I certainly did feel compelled to say that - I felt that this had become a situation where it had to be said. And it certainly is off-topic, but again, I felt that the situation called for it. And feel perfectly free to call it "sloblock", "poppycock", "baloney" or whatever, because I am leaving this discussion now and I am not going to read any future replies.
User:SSSB and User:FORMULA1FAN71, I guess you two are now perfectly free to group all disqualified drivers together, and to remove non-qualifiers and non-pre-qualifiers from race results tables. Just make sure to show respect towards those who don't agree with you, and to not be snobby or mean, or tell them what to do.Ā :) ChupoKlasky1991 (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
ChupoKlasky1991, I ask specifically not to apply emotive judgements. If you feel I am being abrupt, I am not. I am trying to be clear. You say snobbish, I am not, I am trying to be specific. I ask again to not assume any form of emotion, including snobbery, as that is not my aim. I request you not get upset, it is not my intention to offend. I do not know how to make this clearer. I am trying to strip away any attitude from this. Please do not assume offence where none is offered. --Falcadore (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@Falcadore: My point was (and is) that up to the 60s or perhaps 70s the attitude was different since disqualifications were generally only for things which would only otherwise have been a retirement (ie recieving outside assistance meant that instead of retiring you keep on going), and often was only done to allow the driver to get back to pitlane rather than have to wait out on the circuit (and of course many of the regulations were set by the national governing bodies rather than the FIA/FISA/etc). I only made this comment when the discussion originally on the article talk page started moving towards making general statements about all races. I have no issues with placing DSQs after Rets in more recent races, just not for the older ones, and in particular I think the 1959 French GP example I gave should be changed but I decided not to change it straight away since this discussion was ongoing. A7V2 (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@A7V2:, so what you're saying is we should determine where we place DSQ's based on the reason for disqualification, or the year of the event. You want one rule for then and another for now because the attitude was different?
SSSB (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@SSSB:I believe we shouldn't have consistency for consistency's sake. While modern sources may reflect current (for lack of a better word) "attitudes" towards disqualification in their results tables of older races, older sources do NOT do this as it simply isn't how results used to be reported. For example in Mike Lang's "Grand Prix!", the two drivers disqualified in the 1954 Argentine GP are just listed amoungst the retirements. For the 1959 French GP Moss is listed as the last (as in final) retirement with reason as "disqualified" by both Mike Lang and in David Hodge's "French Grand Prix" book. It's not about wanting one rule for then and one for now, it's about reflecting the way results were recorded at the time and not rewriting history because the way things were done in the 1950s was not the same as it was done in the 1990s or is done today. A7V2 (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Since no-one presented an objection I have made this change to 1959 French Grand Prix ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by A7V2 (talk ā€¢ contribs) 22:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

you have to wait more than 2 days before declaring no objection. Any suggestion that history will be re-written is ludicrous. The results tables still show exactly the same information regardless of where it is listed. Also just because it was listed that way then doesn't mean it should be now. We don't have to present information in one way just because other sources do it in the same way. No matter where we put DSQ's the tables show the same data. There is therefore no reason that they shouldn't be consistent with each other.
SSSB (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: You have edited this page ~5-10 times since I originally replied to your comment which, I will add, did not give an actual objection, so I assumed you had lot interest. I wasn't aware that there was any kind of time limit for these kinds of things (I just assumed it was up to judgement) but I'll take it in good faith and not revert your revert. We don't have to present information in one way just because other sources do it in the same way - then why do we need to put DSQs after Rets now? Not because most sources do this? Any suggestion that history will be re-written is ludicrous - I'm not going to respond to such an obviously emotive statement and would kindly ask you to rephrase. I will say, however, that the reason it is akin to rewritting history as it gives the reader the impression that those who were disqualified are placed below those who retired, which at that time was not the case. And I know of no Wikipedia policy requiring consistency between articles. If such a policy did exist then why not have consistency between all motorsport articles rather than just F1 articles? A7V2 (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I hadn't lost interest, I was simply busy with the whole AUS GP mess and forgot. We would present DSQs after DNFs because I think its more logical. A DSQ and a DNF may be equivalent is some situations, but generally it isn't. it gives the reader the impression that those who were disqualified are placed below those who retired, I don't think it gives that impression at all. The only impression it gives is that Moss (using France '59) was disqualified and the others not. I think that you are looking too much into these tables if you think the order of disqualified and retired drivers. Where they appear on the table does not impact on the results the table shows.
SSSB (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for taking so long to contribute to this discussion. One reason the DNQs and DNPQs are listed at the bottom of the race results tables is that the pre-2006(?) race results tables were derived from the (old style) race result tables at www.formula1.com, and that's where they listed them. Now that many/most(?) of the race reports articles have qualifying and pre-qualifying tables, I don't really mind whether the DNQs and DNPQs are listed at the bottom of the race results tables or the (pre)qualifying tables, or both. One advantage of listing them in the race results table is that you can see every driver's result in the one table. With respect to DSQs, my personal preference would be to list the disqualified drivers where they originally finished in the race (but with "DSQ" in the "Pos" column, obviously), so that you can easily see where they originally finished. But I acknowledge that (almost?) no external sources present the information this way. Given that, I don't really mind whether the DSQs are listed before or after the DNFs. DH85868993 (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@SSSB: A DSQ and a DNF may be equivalent is some situations - as I've already said, this was generally always the case up to perhaps the 1960s. The number of laps recorded is generally how many the driver completed before they were disqualified since it was, in effect, the equivalent of a retirement. We would present DSQs after DNFs because I think its more logical. - I disagree that it's more logical. Would you also support placing NCs somewhere else, and not in amoungst the retirements? See for example Joe Kelly in 1950 British Grand Prix would finished but completed insufficient distance to be classified by the rules of the day. I think it's most logical to have all non-classified drivers/entrants who started the race be ordered based on the number of laps completed, at least up to/including the 1960s since, as I've already mentioned, that is how results were generally presented in those days.
@DH85868993: TO be clear, in the example I gave before (1959 French GP) the reason I think Moss should be placed above the other Rets is because he completed more laps, not specifically because I think DSQs should go above Rets (I don't, I think they should be in order of laps completed). As far as showing where DSQs fit in assuming they weren't disqualified, you can't really do that for earlier races since they often reported the lap on which the driver was disqualified (since it was, in effect, a retirement) rather than how many they ended up completing. I don't know when this changed. A7V2 (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
A7V2, firstly comparing NC's and DSQ's are like apples and oranges, The only offence NC's commited was being too slow. However, it appears that I'm alone on this so I'll drop '59 French (because it looks like a no concensus, I still disagree with you). How do you feel then about instances such as
SSSB (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@SSSB: Often the DSQs weren't due to any action on the part of the driver. For example, in the 1960 Monaco Grand Prix Brabham tried to tell the officials not to help him but they did, resulting in disqualification. But by my comparison I'd not meant that NC and DSQ are similar, more that DSQ and Ret are no more or less dissimilar than NC and Ret, the way things were done back then since effectively all three just mean "not classified as a finisher".
I'm not going to get into the details of the 1989 Japanese GP decision, but there was a material difference between Senna and the Rets in that he/McLaren received (I believe) reduced or no prize money which would normally go to everyone. As for the 1994 Belgian GP, this is a good example of the difference between a "modern" disqualification and an "old" disqualification. In 1960 Monaco, Brabam completed more than 40 laps, but was only credited with 40 since that's when he recieved the outside assistance. In 1994 Schumacher completed all 44 laps but due to his disqualification he was effectively credited with zero. (In answer to your question I think in both the examples you give the DSQs should go AFTER the Rets, but I'm less sure about Senna than Schumacher).A7V2 (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@SSSB: I've made the edit again to the 1959 French Grand Prix. One thing I've noticed though, is if you look at the current Formula One website's results archives, in the 1959 French example [3] or 1960 Monaco [4] the disqualified driver is just placed in their place based on number of laps (with Moss actually ahead of some classified finishers). However for 1989 Japan [5] and 1994 Belgium [6] the disqualified driver is missing entirely from the table. I realise this would mean a LOT of work and at least some investigation of other sources (which I don't have time to do myself at the moment) but could it be that what we really need is something like "Excluded" for use when a driver is disqualified and it is interpreted as if they never even started the race as opposed to disqualification being seen as a kind of retirement? A7V2 (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, for starters we know that the results in f1.com's archives are by no means the way those results were officially declared or presented. Look at the source as archived in 1989 Japanese Grand Prix and compare it to how the archives show it now. Now personally I don't care if it says excluded or disqualified, it comes to the same thing. But another interesting case to point out is Hamilton in quali for 2012 Spanish Grand Prix, he is listed at the top despite being excluded. This reflects the cited sources but contradicts every other case of exclusion from quali i've ever seen (including an identical incident at the 2012 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix involving Vettel. Finally, if we are comparing other sources StatsF1 shows disqualifed drivers where they would have finished had they not been disqualied (take Japan 2019 for example where Renault drivers are listed as the 6th and 10th driver down but with DSQ next to thier names and all other numbers bumped up instead.) They have done the same with Japan '89 and belgium '94 where they display Senna and Schumacher at the top with DSQ next to thier name and then show Nannini and Hill below with a 1 next to their names. Different sources will always choose to display results tables differently. It's up to us to decide which system we think works best.
SSSB (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata

How to add calendar to season item and how to add entries, qualification and race results to GP item on Wikidata? Eurohunter (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Aston Martin in Formula One

Just a heads up that in my covid-19 related boredom I have created Draft:Aston Martin in Formula One in anticipation of it needing to be its own article after they join in 2021. Interested editors are invited to contribute.
SSSB (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Formula One non-Championship races

Yesterday I removed several Grand Prix of that category because I thought that only races that NEVER belonged to the World Championship were included. I thought this because several cases are missing: Argentina (1971), Brazil (1972) and surely many others. --Adriel 00 (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The category description says "This category records Formula One events which have been run independent from the FIA World Championship at some point in their history." (my italics). I've added Argentine Grand Prix and Brazilian Grand Prix (and the corresponding categories) into the category. Feel free to add any others which are missing. DH85868993 (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
As it stands it's quite a confusing category having both subcategories and individual articles (some races only appearing as subcategories such as Caen Grand Prix and International Gold Cup and of course several which probably don't have their own category only appear in the list of pages). I think it would be easier to navigate if it only contained links to the main article (except for one-off races) since they generally all contain a link to every year's race anyway. A7V2 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
My opinion: Add the individual races of Grand Prixs that were once part of the championship and Grand Prix articules in case they have NEVER been scored. --Adriel 00 (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I would not object to that suggestion. DH85868993 (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Martini/1995 Brazilian GP

We currently have some inconsistency regarding Pierluigi Martini's result at the 1995 Brazilian Grand Prix:

Here's what external sources have to say:

FORIX says "gearbox broken on the formation lap". So what do we think - should we list his result as "Ret" or "DNS"? DH85868993 (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

In the prose of the article (last line of first paragraph of the subsection titled Race) it says (with sources) that Martini retired on the parade lap, giving two references (one is the year's Autocourse which I don't own myself) so I'd say definitely "DNS".A7V2 (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Also Motorsport Magazine's database has DNS [7]. A7V2 (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Michael Schumacher at the 1996 French Grand Prix and Sebastian Vettel and Jolyon Palmer at the 2016 Bahrain Grand Prix got DNS's under similar circumstances.Tvx1 22:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
It looks like there's consensus for "DNS". If there are no objections within the next 24 hours, I'll update the affected articles. DH85868993 (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I've updated Pierluigi Martini, 1995 Formula One World Championship, Minardi, Minardi M195 and List of Formula One drivers and added the race to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One/Disputed_results#Other_disputed_results/information. DH85868993 (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

FP table

The Motorsports Network now has a statistics database that includes Free Practice results from 2013 to present. Is now the time to include a Free Practice results table to the event articles (such as the following, using the 2016 British Grand Prix as an example)?

No. Driver Constructor FP1 FP2 FP3
3 Australia Daniel Ricciardo Red Bullā€“Renault 5th 1:32.773 2nd 1:32.051 3rd 1:31.488
5 Germany Sebastian Vettel Ferrari 4th 1:32.501 4th 1:32.570 5th 1:32.049
6 Germany Nico Rosberg Mercedes 2nd 1:31.687 ā€“ No time 2nd 1:30.967
7 Finland Kimi RƤikkƶnen Ferrari 6th 1:33.039 5th 1:32.736 9th 1:32.833
8 France Romain Grosjean Haasā€“Ferrari 15th 1:34.547 8th 1:33.614 13th 1:33.344
9 Sweden Marcus Ericsson Sauberā€“Ferrari 20th 1:36.003 19th 1:34.722 21st 1:34.551
11 Mexico Sergio PĆ©rez Force Indiaā€“Mercedes 8th 1:33.235 16th 1:34.356 14th 1:33.361
12 Brazil Felipe Nasr Sauberā€“Ferrari 17th 1:34.805 14th 1:34.154 17th 1:33.710
14 Spain Fernando Alonso McLarenā€“Honda 10th 1:33.527 6th 1:33.040 7th 1:32.754
19 Brazil Felipe Massa Williamsā€“Mercedes 14th 1:34.456 10th 1:33.801 15th 1:33.440
20 Denmark Kevin Magnussen Renault ā€” 20th 1:34.959 19th 1:34.049
21 Mexico Esteban GutiĆ©rrez Haasā€“Ferrari ā€” 12th 1:34.000 11th 1:32.895
22 United Kingdom Jenson Button McLarenā€“Honda 12th 1:34.132 9th 1:33.763 12th 1:33.042
26 Russia Daniil Kvyat Toro Rossoā€“Ferrari 11th 1:33.738 13th 1:34.139 16th 1:33.538
27 Germany Nico HĆ¼lkenberg Force Indiaā€“Mercedes 3rd 1:32.492 15th 1:34.321 8th 1:32.798
30 United Kingdom Jolyon Palmer Renault 16th 1:34.787 18th 1:34.610 18th 1:33.769
33 Netherlands Max Verstappen Red Bullā€“Renault 7th 1:33.202 3rd 1:32.286 4th 1:31.561
44 United Kingdom Lewis Hamilton Mercedes 1st 1:31.654 1st 1:31.660 1st 1:30.904
45 France Esteban Ocon Renault 19th 1:35.980 ā€” ā€”
50 Monaco Charles Leclerc Haasā€“Ferrari 18th 1:35.869 ā€” ā€”
55 Spain Carlos Sainz, Jr. Toro Rossoā€“Ferrari 9th 1:33.446 11th 1:33.840 10th 1:32.889
77 Finland Valtteri Bottas Williamsā€“Mercedes 13th 1:34.263 7th 1:33.493 6th 1:32.736
88 Indonesia Rio Haryanto Manorā€“Mercedes 22nd 1:36.647 21st 1:35.841 20th 1:34.471
94 Germany Pascal Wehrlein Manorā€“Mercedes 21st 1:36.136 17th 1:34.549 22nd 1:34.658
Sources:[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ "2016 Formula One British Grand Prix ā€“ Practice 1". Motorsport Network. 2 April 2020.
  2. ^ "2016 Formula One British Grand Prix ā€“ Practice 2". Motorsport Network. 2 April 2020.
  3. ^ "2016 Formula One British Grand Prix ā€“ Practice 3". Motorsport Network. 2 April 2020.
Absolutely not. We are not a repository of every bit of data. The359 (Talk) 22:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
If it were entirely up to me I would say yes, but I don't think free practice is notable enough to be included.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 00:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Your opening sentenance says it all: statistics database. A statistics database is the only place such information belongs. However Wikipedia is not a stats database. We only need to mention the first few drivers in each session in prose and this is more than sufficent. No need for a large unwieldy table providing next to no useful information.
SSSB (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
If we should a FP table, I would limit it to the top five per session, like they do on the Dutch wiki. However, I'm not convinced of the relevance as the teams are mostly focused on evaluating set-ups and strategies rather than purely on setting the quickest possible time.Tvx1 16:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTSTATS springs to mind here, I don't think it adds value to most readers of F1 articles. Nobody watches the FP sessions because people don't care about them, and the times from them are meaningless- people use different tyres and fuel loads, so being first in free practice doesn't mean anything for qualifying and the race. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Alonso: Claim of one of the greatest Formula One drivers in the history of the sport

There is an ongoing disussion at Talk:Fernando Alonso#Claim of often regarded as one of the greatest Formula One drivers in the history of the sport as to weather his article should claim that he is one of the greatest of all time. Interested editors are inivited to contribute.
SSSB (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

East Geman drivers

An editor has posted a suggestion at Talk:Rudolf Krause that we expand the information we currently have on East German drivers. (I thought I would mention the suggestion here because I wasn't sure how many people would have Talk:Rudolf Krause on their watchlists). DH85868993 (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Fastest lap at the 1953 French Grand Prix

I've noticed a discrepancy between various sources on whether Fangio alone set fastest lap in the 1953 French GP, or if it was shared with Ascari. This has some fairly far reaching implications, since it affects the number of points Fangio scored in the championship (note that Ascari would still drop this round from his total even if awarded an extra half point). For that reason I'm bringing it to your attention as I'm not sure which way to go. See Talk:1953 French Grand Prix. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Death of Ronnie Peterson

An editor had proposed that the article Death of Ronnie Peterson (Draft:Death of Ronnie Peterson) be created. Intereseted editors are invited to respond to the proposal at Talk:1978 Italian Grand Prix.
SSSB (talk) 08:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  • In answer to the actual question, I don't think separate article about his death is warranted, it can be covered sufficiently in his own article and the race article. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Sock of Rowde

Heads up for those with a long memory; the UK West Country IP-hopping disruptive editor (250+ addresses) eventually blocked as 'Rowde' has created yet another sock account here. The previous sock accounts have all been blocked but the one before this was declined by the blocking Admin. and had to wait until a different one spotted it. Been reported. Eagleash (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Eagleash: just to point out: "IP-hopping" is not something that editors using dynamic IP addresses have any control over. It could be that each time they connect to the internet they receive a different IP address from their ISP. Also, Wikipedia welcomes IP editors as much as any other editor. So it, in itself, changing IP addresses is neither a sign of disruption nor of socking. That isn't to say there aren't other signs though. So "IP-hopping" or "IP hopper" shouldn't be used as a pejorative when referring to a Wikipedia editor. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Well true up to a point but there comes a time when constantly changing IPs becomes a disruption in itself ā€“ it makes it very difficult to communicate with the editor effectively for example. Or as another F1 regular put it when you get a disruptive editor "you can't keep up with them". As I recall you were the only editor who tried to defend this guy back in 2016. See this archived thread. Eagleash (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The point is that the frequency of change of their IP address is not under the control of the editor, it is controlled by the system their ISP uses. So we can't blame the editor for that. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The term was used to remind people of who we are dealing with here. It's not pejorative, that is what you inferred; it is a fact. Eagleash (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Eagleash: so when you say "changing IPs becomes a disruption in itself", what would you recommend users do, if, for whatever reason, they do not want to register, but whose ISP only provide dynamic IP addresses? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
But this user did register. Multiples times even, in an abusive sockpuppeting manner. A user who was blocked indenfinetly should not edit Wikipedia at all. Not with other new accounts, not while logged out.Tvx1 09:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know whether they were doing whatever they did, abusively, or not. But that wasn't my point. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't conflate abusive editing and the switching of IP-addresses. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with editing constructively with a different IP each time if that's how their ISP operates. It is wrong to use it to intentionally deceive, disrupt or evade blocks.
Additionally, it adds some difficulty in stopping the disruption. However, we should put this into perspective. There are very many disruptive editors active at any given time and the vast majority are dealt with effectively (in large part thanks to notices like this thread). Usually they show patterns which identify themselves. But, if an IP-hopping vandal jumps to a different target each time and shows no patterns, then each IP would simply appear as another disruptive editor among the many others also active at the time. But it's still just one person, and there is only so much one individual can do to move the needle on the total volume of disruption, regardless of the number IPs or accounts they are using. --DB1729 (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

New timeline templates

I notice the recent creation of the following "timeline" templates:

Do we think these templates are useful? I thought I would ask, so that if consensus is that they're not useful, we can avoid wasting effort adding them to and then removing them from articles. DH85868993 (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

They really do look.... not nice. And I'm not sure how appropriate it is to include the current F1 logo on the older templates (or at all frankly) given that F1 as an entity didn't even exist until at least 1981. Maybe the tyre supplier ones could be modified a bit to look nice and be useful but I really don't think the other ones are going to be useful to anyone since they are so cluttered. And don't they duplicated information which can easily be found elsewhere? A7V2 (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll also add that the majority of these templates are too wide, for some of them only half the template (or less) fits on my laptop screen. The need to be split more than they already are. I think the only way that these could be useful is if you want to see which construcotrs were involved in the 80's (for example). Personally I don't see the benefit of these templates even if we ignore the wide range of issues I have with the formatting and timeframe (which I have only touched upon)
SSSB (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
We already have categories and lists for constructors (Category:Formula One constructors and List of Formula One constructors) and circuits (Category:Formula One circuits and List of Formula One circuits). I cannot see how these navboxes/timelines help it. As for tyre suppliers, a category could be created for that. ā€“ Sabbatino (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree that categories are better- those templates are pretty confusing (especially the constructor ones which have loads of UK teams and so are long). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Good points. I'll clean up the tyre supplier ones today and tomorrow, but the others are subject to whatever y'all see fit, be it deletion or splitting or whatever. Quattrovalvole (u/t, s s/t) 12:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC) (Update - the tire supplier ones have been fixed. Might fix the others, but their fate is ultimately up to y'all. Quattrovalvole (u/t, s s/t) 18:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)) (Oh yeah - I made a tire supplier category too. Quattrovalvole (u/t, s s/t) 18:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC))
I really canā€™t see the purpose of these. I believe deletion is the only sensible option.Tvx1 01:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The tyre supplier timeline is the only of the above templates that I would deem usable on an article. The others are wildly impractical. If no use can be found for them, then deletion would be sensible.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 01:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Why is it important to sort tyre and constructor by nationality? It obscures usability. To find a company quickly it requires you to know the nationality. Nationality is also not a defining characteristic and it is not a characteristic at all of tyre makers. There is no pointscore for them anymore than there is a prize for brake discs or engine computers, radiators or any other component of the car. Not even for engine suppliers! Sorted by alphabetical spelling is much more suitable. --Falcadore (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't make head nor tail of the logic of these. They are unwieldy and confusing. They don't really have any intrinsic value. I think deleting is the only viable endpoint, they don't seem to have a purpose. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

F1 driver results legend

Why are there currently five different F1 driver results legends and one redirect?

  1. Redirect
  2. Template:F1 driver results legend 2
  3. Template:F1 driver results legend 3
  4. Template:F1 driver results legend 4
  5. Template:F1 driver results legend 5
  6. Template:F1 driver results legend 6

--Sparkle1 (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

They are all variations used for different sorts of articles with different needs. The first one is a redirect because it would be otherwise identical to Template:Motorsports driver results legend ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk ā€¢ contribs)
Specifically:
  • Template:F1 driver results legend is a redirect to Template:Motorsport driver results legend. If I recall correctly, the template started life as Template:F1 driver results legend, but then people started using it for the results tables for other racing categories, so it was moved to the more general name.
  • Template:F1 driver results legend 2 is for use with Formula One World Championship results tables, where pole position and fastest lap are indicated by bold and italics respectively (see Note)
  • Template:F1 driver results legend 3 is for use with non-championship Formula One results tables, where pole position and fastest lap are indicated by bold and italics respectively (see Note). It differs from Template:F1 driver results legend 2 in that green means "other top 6 position" rather than "other points position" (since references to "points" don't make sense for non-championship races) and omits expansions for "WDC" and "WCC" which also aren't applicable for non-championship races
  • Template:F1 driver results legend 4 is for use in season summary articles, where pole position and fastest lap are indicated by bold and italics respectively (see Note). I can't remember why we started using a different legend for the season summary articles.
  • Template:F1 driver results legend 5 is for use with Formula One World Championship results tables, where pole position and fastest lap are indicated by "P" and "F" respectively (see Note)
  • Template:F1 driver results legend 6 is for use in season summary articles, where pole position and fastest lap are indicated by "P" and "F" respectively (see Note)
Note: Originally/for a long time pole position and fastest lap were indicated by bold and italics respectively. Recently there has been a change to indicate pole position and fastest lap by "P" and "F" respectively. But some tables still use the "bold and italic" format.
DH85868993 (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok that confusing as all giddy-up. So why is there not a consolidated single template? This would make understanding a lot easier to someone who is not an expert on the subject. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Because different results tables use the same colour to mean different things and/or indicate pole position and fastest lap in different ways. For example, in Graham_Hill#Complete_Formula_One_World_Championship_results, a green background means "other points position" (i.e. other than 1st, 2nd or 3rd). But in Graham_Hill#Complete_Formula_One_Non-Championship_results, a green background means "other top 6 position" (i.e. other than 1st, 2nd or 3rd), because there is no such thing as a "points position" in a non-championship race. So the two tables need different legends. Likewise, in Graham_Hill#Complete_Formula_One_World_Championship_results, pole position is indicated by the race abbreviation being bold. But in 2019_Formula_One_World_Championship#World_Drivers'_Championship_standings, pole position is indicated by a superscript "P". So the two tables need different legends. Admittedly, if we ever get to the situation where all the F1 results tables use "P" and "F" to indicate pole position and fastest lap, we could possibly retire Template:F1 driver results legend 2 and Template:F1 driver results legend 4. And maybe it would have been a good idea if we'd picked a different colours for "other points position" in Championship results tables and "other top 6 position" in non-Championship results tables, but we didn't. Plus I think there's an argument that it makes more sense to have a separate legend for non-championship races, which omits elements which aren't applicable to non-championship races such as "WCC", "WDC" and "Friday test driver (2003 onwards)". DH85868993 (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The reason why we started using legend 4, is because legends two and three include some information (e.g. Free Practice Driver (TD)) that are only used in individual article like those of drivers. Because this led to frequent discussion as to why some code weren't used in the result matrices of season articles, legend 4 was created as a dedicated legend for season articles.Tvx1 15:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

AFD

An article on 2020 Formula One pre-season testing was recently created and has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion here.Tvx1 14:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Mercedes chassis names

Mercedes have recently adopted the habit of having lengthy names for their chassis. Where McLaren, for example, are entering the McLaren MCL35 in 2020, Mercedes are entering the Mercedes-AMG F1 W11 EQ Performance. However, outside the official launch, I have never actually seen or heard the car referred to by its full name. Most of the time it's just the "F1 W11". This is not the only car that this has happened with; in this article, the Mercedes AMG F1 W09 EQ Power+ is just referred to as the "F1 W09". As such, I'm wondering what the best way to handle this is. Chassis names don't get mentioned much outside their individual articles, but when they doā€”such as in championship articlesā€”I think the shorter version should be used. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree, if I don't google for it I don't think I even find a mention of W11 in any article, let alone the whole thing. It may even be worth considering a WP:RM. To a commonly used (the shorter) name.
SSSB (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@SSSB: I would even say the same goes for engine designations. Mercedes' current engine is officially known as the "Mercedes-AMG F1 M11 EQ Performance" and I couldn't tell you what anything after the F1 means. The other engine suppliers just name theirs sequentially. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, unfortunately previous (recent) discussions don't. Incidentally the Mercedes engine name uses the same naming convention (as far as I can tell) as the car but with M instead of W.
SSSB (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mclarenfan17: The only source I know of is 2019-20 Autocourse (I don't have any other recent years) which has Mercedes-AMG F1 W10-F1 M10 EQ Power+ V6 in every results table, so definitely the redundant marketing nonsense could be removed if next to no sources use it. I tend to side with Stirling Moss' view anyway, that "no-one used (model names)", and it seems a lot of sources agree with this, often referring to just Mercedes' "2020 car". @SSSB: The tradition dates back to at least the W25 where usually the numbers lined up (but not always), with W standing for Wagen, M standing for Motor. A7V2 (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@A7V2: this issue has come up before and it was rejected. I don't really see the point of including the full engine designation in championship articlesā€”car and engine manufacturer articles are another matterā€”unless the engine itself notable enough to warrant its own article, such as the Cosworth DFV. That said, discussing this is not really what I had intended when I started this section. I am, however, wondering if there is something we can do: if we shorten the "F1 W11 EQ Performance" to "F1 W11" in some articles, then perhaps we can also shorten the "Mercedes-AMG F1 M11 EQ Performance" to "Mercedes F1 M11". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, thank you for pointing out the reason for Mercedes' naming convention. I'm glad it's not all marketing junk. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI: Discussion in the German portal about a retouched picture

After long discussion in the German motorsport portal (Link to discussion (German)) we've an aligned decison:

The picture will not used further more in the German Wikipedia! This picture has been retouched to the point where it is not clear if it actually represents what it claims to represent. regards --Pitlane02 šŸ talk 11:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

At the moment I'm wondering about the missing feedbacks and maybe my explanations (and my English) is not good enough. We've discussed, is that file a fake or not, and this point is crucial for each other wiki project... Regards --Pitlane02 šŸ talk 10:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Formula One move discussion

An editor has proposed that Formula One be moved to Formula 1. Interested editors are welcome to join the discussion at Talk:Formula One.
SSSB (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This was closed as not moved but another editor has now opened an RfC on the subject (same location).
SSSB (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The RfC is entirely justified. For one, moving the article would have a significant impact on the WikiProject. Considering that an RM discussion is only open for a weekā€”and the RM discussion was closed just as editors started debating itā€”an RfC reaches a wider audience and gives editors more time to discuss it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mclarenfan17:, I think you are reading too much into my comment. I only meant to update this thread with the latest happenings. I wasn't suggesting that the RfC was unjustified.
SSSB (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@SSSB: that wasn't aimed specifically at you. It was more for people wondering why an RfC was opened if the RM was only recently closed. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Team and car results matrices

Near the end of last year a short discussion took place regarding redesigning some results matrices. It's unclear whether some consensus was reached, but the proposed new format was implemented on the 2020 season's car articles (e.g. [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McLaren_MCL35&oldid=934824678 McLaren]). With the new season about to finally start I think we should matter first. I think there a more option, like making the too wide tables scrollable that weren't considered back then.Tvx1 16:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Pre-season testing articles

Someone has created an article about pre-season testing in 2020, which I have nominated for deletion (again ... surprised it didn't get deleted the first time). I think we need to be vigilant about this, because details of pre-season and rookie tests have found their way into Formula E articles where there seems to be more in the article about testing than there is about actual racing. It seems the creator(s) of this article have assumed that if something happened, it's automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It had an AfD a few weeks back which had no consensus. Views of long standing F1 editors would be appreciated. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Testing this season after the imposed gap may be more significant than usual. I'm not bothered so let's see how it goes. Britmax (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Mercedes have already announced that they are taking a raft of updates to Austria. The car they compete with will be significantly different to the one they tested with, making testing irrelevant. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I hate to break it to you and risk wandering into forum territory, but the role of the Maclaren team as the sole arbiter of what is relevant in Formula One is currently at a bit of a nadir. Britmax (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
... huh? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hah! Interesting error on my part there. Still only the one team though. let's see what turns up. Britmax (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Closed. At WP:AN now.Tvx1 11:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(70th) Anniversary Grand Prix

I've started a discussion at Talk:70th Anniversary Grand Prix about if the Grand Prix name (i.e. what is listed in List of Formula One Grand Prix) should be 70th Anniversary Grand Prix or Anniversary Grand Prix. Interested editors are welcome to contribute there. Thank you,
SSSB (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Small infobox issue

Would somebody mind taking a look at 70th Anniversary Grand Prix, please? There's a small issue with the infobox that I don't know how to fix. The heading of the infobox reads "2020 70th Anniversary Grand Prix", but the way the article is written (and indeed some of the discussion on the 2020 talk page) suggests that the title should be "70th Anniversary Grand Prix". In other words, if the race were to be run in 2021 it would be "71st Anniversary Grand Prix", not "2021 70th Anniversary Grand Prix". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the incorrect "2020" by depopulating the "Year" field. The cost is that we also have to lose the "Race x of y" line. But I don't think it's worth changing the template just to accommodate this one race, noting that there are plenty of other races which don't have the "Race x of y" line in the infobox. DH85868993 (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I was about to do the same change as User:DH85868993 did (I got an edit conflict). I think it's a good enough solution. A7V2 (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I've just had a look at the documentation (Template:Infobox Grand Prix race report) to see if there was an obvious solution, and it's interesting to note that the "Date" is apparently depreciated in favour of "Fulldate", and that per a discussion in 2017 the "season number" and "race number" fields shouldn't be used anyway, but also that there's so disagreement about it so it should be left "until a final resolution on the subject is reached." A7V2 (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I wonder wether it's really that much trouble to make the year appearing in front of the name optional (i.e. that it only appears there if the nameyear parameter is present and populated.Tvx1 11:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
If you mean "i.e. that it only appears there if the Year parameter is present and populated", then that's how the template currently works. The problem is that "Race X of Y in the YYYY Formula One World Championship" line also uses the Year parameter, so if you omit the Year parameter but populate the Race_No and Season_No parameters, then the infobox displays "Race X of Y in the Expression error: Unexpected > operator". DH85868993 (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
No that's not what I meant. Obviously that's NOT how the infobox currently works. Currently, the year parameter is mandatory and its absence generates an error message. But we can also make the parameter optional, which means its absence does not cause an error.Tvx1 12:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I figured it out, it can be done using "CUST" as the type instead of "F1" then typing the "Race 5 of..." bit directly. A7V2 (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Nice work. DH85868993 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Well this has become more confusing now since the race is actually using 2020 in its nameTvx1 14:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't reflected in the article title. The article title and the infobox should really match.
SSSB (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
We can easily change that though.Tvx1 15:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Drivers who DNQ'd

How come, in Grands Prix where one or more drivers failed to qualify and thus did not take part in the actual race (the few cases where such drivers were given permission to take part notwithstanding), these drivers are present in some of the corresponding race result tables, but not in others? And how come there's objection when they're removed from these tables, *and* objection when they're put back?

For that matter, how come these drivers' position numbers in qualifying are displayed beside their names in some of the corresponding qualifying result tables, while in others "DNQ" is displayed beside their names? And again, how come there's objection when the position numbers are replaced with "DNQ"s, *and* objection when "DNQ"s are replaced with the position numbers?

We have to agree on a single standard here, folks. Either *all* the GPs in which drivers failed to qualify and thus didn't take part in the actual race include these drivers in the corresponding race result tables, or they *all* exclude them. And either *all* these GPs display the position numbers beside the names of these drivers in the corresponding qualifying result tables, or they *all* display "DNQ" beside their names. 80.233.42.141 (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree we should bring some consistency in this. I feel the DNQ and DNPQ drivers should not be included in the race results tables. And in the qualifying tables they should not get a position number, since the FIA themselves do not credit them with one. Note though that some of our older race reports do not include a qualifying results table (yet). In such cases it makes sense to list these drivers in the race results tables until a qualifying table is added.Tvx1 17:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree that DNQ/DNPQ cars should only appear in the results table in the absence of a qualifying table. I understand the reasoning for keeping it as DNQ instead of position numbers for qualifying but it's worth remembering that the FIA "official" results, especially for pre 1981, is not necessarily the actual official/correct result, and also in some older races drivers didn't necessarily start the race in the correct order, and sometimes cars which DNQed were allowed to start the race anyway (and not just because someone ahead couldn't start). I think it would be better to keep the position, maybe in brackets, or maybe put the DNQs in italics or something like that. A7V2 (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The fact that sometimes they didn't start in their qualifying order is actually a reason why we shouldn't give these DNQ or DNQ drivers positions in the qualifying tables. The simply didn't have one. And with regards to "official" results I think you are mixing the F1 site's results archive with the FIA. They are not the same at all. The F1 archive has the occasional error, but if you encounter a contemporary FIA document it most certainly will be correct.Tvx1 11:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The positions in the qualifying tables should show the order of lap times, nothing else. There's usually a separate column for grid position (in the race result table) and of course prose or notes can be used to clear up any inconsistencies. Not sure what you mean by "contemporary FIA document" since races were originally organised and regulated by the national clubs (with increasing oversight and standardisation by the FIA through the 70s of course), the only time the FIA would issue an "official" result was if they had to rule on a protest. A7V2 (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Style question

I was editing Gilby Engineering and noticed that all the cars were listed with separate links for manufacturer and model, i.e: Cooper T45 rather than just Cooper T45. I was going to combine them all as this seemed erroneous, but perhaps that is how things are supposed to be done? Is there a rule for this? At Tyrrell Grand Prix results, both methods are used which is giving me a headache. Thank you, Ā Mr.choppersĀ |Ā āœŽĀ  03:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

In a driver results table, the convention is to link the manufacturer and model separately, e.g. Cooper T45, per the 5th bullet point under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One/Tables#Driver_results_table. The sample constructor/team results table at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One/Tables#Constructor/Team_results_table, contains direct links to the models, e.g. Jordan EJ13, but this is not explicitly specified in a footnote. DH85868993 (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Ugh, I don't like it, but I restored the content accordingly. Best, Ā Mr.choppersĀ |Ā āœŽĀ  01:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mr.choppers: I was suggesting that the results table at Gilby Engineering, being a constructor/team results table, should have (for example), links to Maserati 250F, per the sample constructor/team results table, not separate links to "Maserati" and "250F" as would be found in a driver results table. Sorry if my previous comment didn't make that clear. I've updated the table accordingly. DH85868993 (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@DH85868993: that's much nicer, great. Ā Mr.choppersĀ |Ā āœŽĀ  22:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion at 70th Anniversary Grand Prix

There is a move discussion at 70th Anniversary Grand Prix. This is different to the previous discussion which was regarding the inclusion of "70th" in the article name. I invite interested editors to participate in the discussion there. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Results data proposal

I will always keep admire Template:F1stat. And I think it is time to think about a new step to the simpler updates of the results tables.

We update the same info about the result of one driver at least in the four similar tables (we probably can find a way for a driver table).

So my proposal is to keep all the season result data in one template. There are my first concept of the template and demonstration of how it actually works.

I believe that if we store information about one season in the template, it will be good not only for the current season, but for all previous. Because it will be easier to monitor the changes for data in one template, than in four articles.

Hope to hear about disadvantages of my proposal and/or something about how to make my code for the template clearer and easier. If community will be satisfied with the proposal and the code in the current state I will extend the data for all 2020 drivers and create the template. Corvus tristis (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I like this idea. Some comments/questions:
  • Can it/does it work when the value in the template has not yet been populated? i.e. at the start of the season, could we populate all the results tables with appropriate references to the template (which at that time would appear blank) and then after each race just update the template and have the results "automagically" appear in all the tables? (If this doesn't currently work, I'm sure we should be able to make it work). Obviously 2020 is a bit of a weird season in that the calendar has changed multiple times; I'm more thinking of a "normal" season where the calendar is set at the start of the season and doesn't change.
  • I'm in two minds about whether it's better to have lots of simple templates (e.g. F1-1, F1-2, F1-3, etc) for the different race positions, or to have a single "smart" template which works out the background colour based on a "race result" parameter. Obviously the former arrangement is simpler but more of a maintenance burden. I might have a go at trying to write a "smart" template.
  • It would need to support the "dagger" (for classified but did not finish), but I think this should just be as simple as adding the dagger after the call to the lower-level template.
  • There are very rare occasions where the standard background colours aren't used, e.g. if a driver finishes 4th but is awarded no points, but we could always just not use the template in those instances.
  • It would be good if it worked for "DSQ" (where the text is a non-standard colour), but if that ends up being too hard, we could just not use the template in those instances.
  • We'd need to make sure that the template substitutes properly at the end of the season, but that's just a technical issue. I remember when we substituted {{F1stat}} at the the end of the first season - rather than just inserting numbers like "3", it inserted the whole template code!
DH85868993 (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick and detailed feedback! Yes, it can work without populated value, and we can fill all at the start of the season, but I had to remove the first "|" from the F1-1 and similar templates to make empty cells possible.
I agree that one single "smart" template will be much better, but I haven't find any working examples for table cells at first. I will try to work with Template:Coltit for the solution.
I will think about what to do with different point systems and non-standard bgcolors, probably your proposal is the easiest solution.
It work with DSQ and dagger, exactly like with Template:F1 race position. I have updated my demonstration page. To show this.
As I said previously part of my proposal is to avoid substition at the end of season at all, and use these even for the previous seasons to take away the neccesity of checking that in all tables the same result after somebody's edit. Also it will decrease the level of test and vandal edits in the tables. Other words, I propose to copy the approach of the Template:F1Laps2020 and create templates for every single season. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
P.S.I have changed my single templates to Coltit. It works beautiful, and doesn't require additional template for bgcolor, and now we don't have problems with different point systems and can choose any bgcolor. We almost ready to start to make complete 2020 template. I think that we should also think about how make it work in the driver articles. Via template I was able only to make it upside down, result and link to the GP below. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I notice on the demonstration page that when you hover over a cell, it produces a tooltip of the colour value (e.g. "colour FFFFBF"). I think this is probably undesirable, but that it can be turned off by adding "|x=" to the end of the calls to {{Coltit}}. Apart from that, I think the updated template and demonstration page look good. I'm not entirely convinced about the idea of having templates for previous seasons though:
  • Because we rarely need to update the results for previous seasons, it seems to me like a lot of effort for comparatively little benefit, i.e. compared to a template for the current season which means that after each race, we only need to update each driver's result in one place rather than 4.
  • Perhaps more of a concern is whether we might hit template transclusion limits in large team results pages, e.g. McLaren Grand Prix results or (especially) Ferrari Grand Prix results. I'd suggest setting up a copy of your template with 20 race results for each of 20 drivers (since we're only testing transclusion limits, they could all be the same result if you like, so it could all be "copy and paste", but maybe use {{F1 race position|10|f|p}}ā€  as the result, as a "worst case scenario"), then doing up a test version of Ferrari Grand Prix results with 2120 (= number of individual Ferrari race entries to date) calls to the template (again, since we're just testing transclusion limits, you could just have 53 repeats of the same season of 2 drivers x 20 races). Then double that to simulate the "Ferrari as an engine supplier" and "non-championship results" tables and a bit of future expansion. If you hit the template transclusion limit you'll know because the bottom of the page won't render properly.
Having said all that, if there are no issues with template transclusions, and you're happy to put in the effort to do templates for previous seasons, I have no objection to them. DH85868993 (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your great help with this and noticinig things which I have missed, really appreciate it. I fixed the tooltip issue. And you convinced me to wait and think more about neccesity of adding it to the previous seasons. We can at least wait and see how will work 2020 template. Certanly we should substitute the template at the end of the season in team and engine suppliers articles due to transclusion limits (I have a test and reached the limit, as you said), but I think we don't have neccesity to substitute it in season and chassis article and we can start new template for 2021 season just like with F1laps. I will work on template documentation and then I will add to 2020 season article and 2020 chassis articles.
My proposal for the update algorythm in the drivers' standings is to add f1stat template to the points section, and after the update of the f1 stat and our new template just to copy the driver row to the his current actual position. Using F1stat for the current position wouldn't add much help as it will still require to switch factual location of the rows. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You know, I've been thinking a lot about or tables and I have been wondering for while wether it wouldn't be a good idea to start using Modules. Modules are far superior to the basic templates we still use an can easily be programmed to automatically perform a myriad of function like for instance adding a specific background color based on the entered value. It's even possible to allow an optional parameter to override the automatically generated color if desired. Other sports Wikiprojects like WP:FOOTY use them extensively and I think we can benefit from them. Module:Sports rbr table actually has functionality that comes close to what we would need.Tvx1 20:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm certainly like it more than the template as it will also reduce template transclusions, but Module:Sports rbr table doesn't work with Template:F1 race position and even with bold and italics. It will be great if somebody has an ability to write a module for motorsport tables. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Of course that module is not at present compatible with our needs. But it does quite clearly show a lot of the functionality that we desire. So it could be used as a basis to write a F1 (or even motorsports) module or we could request one be written from the ground up here.Tvx1 18:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Tables in F1 driver's articles proposal

We may save some width if we decide to use this option. Corvus tristis (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to this idea in general, but I have a few questions/comments:
  • How would you handle a mid-season team change, such as we had with Albon and Gasly last year? Obviously we could just list both entrants/chassis/engines in the "entrant/chsssis/engine" line, but I think many readers would be keen for the table to show which races the driver drove for each team.
  • The formatting looks quite nice in the sample table, but I'm wondering how it will work with longer entrant/chassis/engine names, e.g. "Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 Team", Mercedes AMG F1 W11 EQ Performance", "Mercedes M11 EQ Performance 1.6 V6 t", as in the "2020" row of Lewis Hamilton's results table. To partially answer my own question, I tried previewing these names in the sample table and (unsurprisingly) it just made the first 14 columns wider, but I guess this could be overcome by either inserting judicious line breaks in the entrant/chassis/engine names, or perhaps by specifying a fixed width for the table, so that the names wrap automatically?
  • Do you propose to continue colour-coding the WDC and Points cells for the top three positions, as we currently do? The current location of these cells, at the extreme right of the table, makes it very easy to quickly see where a driver finished in the championship, e.g. if I look at the right-hand columns of Lewis_Hamilton#Complete_Formula_One_results, for the last 7 rows, I see "gold, gold, silver, gold, gold, gold, gold" which instantly tells me he finished "1st, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st" in the last 7 championships. In the revised format, that information is still there, but it's buried in between (coloured) race result cells, so it may not be as easy to see at a glance.
  • If we decided to update all the driver result tables to the new format, that's over 700 tables to update, so if the benefit is only marginal, then it may not be worth the effort.
DH85868993 (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, you are right the first proposal creates more problems than it solves. So I have a new proposal to use id links to have links for both racing record and results table. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I like the link from the Career Summary table to the detailed results table. I'm not so sure about the "pared back" detailed results table though. I think most readers would still want to see at least the entrant and WDC position/points columns in the detailed results table. DH85868993 (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Something like this? I have moved the link from extra column to the "Races" column. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
This is unnecessarily convoluting a already effective system, and, as DH85868993 has mentioned, the benefit (and I would dispute there is any) is marginal compared to difficulty of implementation. These proposals make the results, especially over time, much more difficult to follow (both visually and navigation wise), and the only discernible benefit is less horizontal scrolling. I don't see any added usability from this.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 22:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Have you seen the last proposal? The first two not on the table anymore (but probably the first one will be good for the chassis as their usage lasts just one season), or you consider this as a better idea?). In general, there are two questions: 1. Why do you oppose an opportunity for quick jump from the racing record table to the relevant line in the result matrix? 2. Are we really need chassis and engine info in the result matrix? Corvus tristis (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I have looked at all the proposals you've posted here, but I take issue with the difficulty in scanning through results and comparing them year by year. The table implemented at the start of this year on the vehicle pages were very effective and I'm a fan of them, but they don't work on driver/team pages for the same reason - it makes scanning through results over years exceptionally difficult.
This test is, in my opinion, the best of your proposals so far. But, as I mentioned in my first reply, I just don't see the advantage of this change. Horizontal scrolling isn't that big of deal, and the loss of easy visual navigation (one row per year, entry on the left, results through the middle, standings on the right) just to reduce page width doesn't sound compelling to me.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 10:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Why is vehicle info is neccesary in the driver result matrix? The main purpose of the table is to give a quick detalisation of results. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • That vehicle information is important for both context of both results and entry, particularly in early years when it was common for a driver or team to use multiple vehicles in a single season. Seeing what vehicle/driver pairings achieved what results is pretty significant for the reader to properly understand what they're seeing. That's completely lost in this system.
    5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 11:32, 24 July 2020 (UT
Ok, understood, would not push this idea. Though certain that it will not hurt nobody if we introduce scheme with id link from races in racing record to the result matrix with keeping the current format. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Might I remind all of you that Wikipedia possesses many technologies at present, like one that can make this tables scrollable?Tvx1 20:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • If I'm understanding that documentation correctly, the table is limited to 30 rows. That would be fine for all driver/vehicle articles (assuming they aren't prolific team switchers) but probably wouldn't work in engine manufacturer/team results.
    5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 00:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Per the documentation, extra rows beyond 30 can be added.Tvx1 18:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Imola circuit

With Imola having been announced as a returning venue for the 2020 championship, I have been reading through our article on the circuit. I noticed that our coverage of its early existence is quite poor and even at some spots incorrect. We apparently have no maps depicting its early configurations on Wikimedia. The infobox incorrectly list the version of the circuit used for its inaugural formula one world championship race (in 1980) as the "original configuration". That is quite incorrect. The circuit has existed since the fifties and its original layout was quite different to the one used in 1980 as well as to later revisions. The circuit has even been used for formula one races, albeit non championship ones, before 1980. A full chronology of all the different layouts can be found for instance here.Tvx1 18:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

"None" or "TBD" for Next race box

In the "Next_year's_race" section for the race report template should "None" or "TBD" be used when another race hasn't been held? I think it's best to be consistent here. "None" is the text currently in use the most with older Grand Prix entires. I personally don't find that "None" means that no race will ever be held there again but I'd like to get a consensus on this. FozzieHey (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  • TBD - firstly I had every intention to apply it across all relevant article. Anyway, to me "none" has an implication of finality behind it (I.e. it implies there won't ever be another one)
    SSSB (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd rather discuss it here before we change it across all articles to get a consensus, I think it'd be better for a bot to do this if we did get a consensus to change? FozzieHey (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
That's fine. I was simply pointing out that I had no intention of keeping it inconsistent.
SSSB (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Depends on the situation - TBD implies that some sort of effort is taking place to host another race in the near future or that an agreement exist, but it hasn't been confirmed when the next race is expected to be. In case like for instance the Pacific Grand Prix using TBD is just nonsensical. In such a case using none is better. I don't think this has an implication of finality, but only states that no subsequent edition of that race is scheduled to happen in near future.Tvx1 20:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Disputed results

I have recently added the 1953 French Grand Prix fastest lap discrepancy to Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Disputed results and noticed that many of the other disputed results were not discussed on the article talk pages for the particular race (instead either not discussed, or discussed on this page). Given also that the disputed results page is quite hard to find (it's more than one click away from the main wikiproject page for example) I think it would be useful to have some kind of note (perhaps in the form of a template) to put at the top of the relevant article talk pages linking both to the disputed results page and a link to any relevant discussion establishing the consensus interpretation of the sources, but I'm interested in others' views. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Whether we use a template, or just come up with a standardised wording/format, I'm not especially fussed. DH85868993 (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Potential wording(s)

I'm not sure of the exact wording, but here are two suggestions (one where there was a discussion, one where there was not): Eg for van der Lof at 1952 Dutch Grand Prix:

Reliable sources sometimes disagree about race results. In this case there is disagreement over the result of driver Dries van der Lof. Current consensus is that he was NC (Not Classified). Before changing this, please see the 52 NED entry on the disputed results page, then start a discussion either on this page or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. The consensus regarding other disputed results are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Disputed results.

For Fisher at the 1967 Mexican Grand Prix:

Reliable sources sometimes disagree about race results. In this case there is disagreement over the result of driver Mike Fisher. Current consensus is that he was DNS (Did not start). Before changing this, please see the 67 MEX entry on the disputed results page, read the archived discussion then start a discussion either on this page or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. The consensus regarding other disputed results are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Disputed results

Thoughts? A7V2 (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I should (I think?) that the first sentence is taken directly from the first sentence of Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Disputed results. A7V2 (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I have implemented these two since there were no objections. I will probably eventually add the others (probably not the "restarted races" ones which aren't disputed) using more or less the same layout. A7V2 (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:F1 race position

Do we really need this template? What does it do which could not do a simple sup tag?

1''' <sup>P F</sup>''' {{F1 race position|1|f|p}}
1P F 1PF

I see a potential issue with the big articles like Ferrari Grand Prix results and Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix results because at some point we may reach template transclusions limit and the pages would not load correctly. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging template creator: @Krea:
SSSB (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The template was created as a result of this discussion. I think one of the perceived advantages of using a template is that if that we decide in the future to change the formatting/annotation used to denote pole position and fastest lap (again), it only needs to be changed in one place, (the template) rather than in all the individual results tables. DH85868993 (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Can't deny this advantage. But what will you do when you reach template transclusions limit? P.S. Also the template doesn't work inside the module if we will decide to use it at some point. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
First thought is we would split it (Ferrari Grand Prix results (1950-2029) and then Ferrari Grand Prix results (2030-)). Then we can either have them as separate pages (with a summary on the main page) or transclude them into the main page (if that's a way of going around the transclusion limit). (I.e. Ferrari results would have a code of {{Ferrari Grand Prix results (1950-2029)}} {{Ferrari Grand Prix results (2030-)}}
SSSB (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I have no more questions on this one, thank you both. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Headings to break up the 2020 season

Typically when discussing the season we break it up into multiple sections. For example, the 2019 season is broken up into "Opening rounds", "European rounds", and "Closing rounds", while the MCL34 article is even more specific and refers to "Opening rounds" (4 events), "European and Canadian rounds" (10 events), "Asian rounds" (3 events), and finally "Closing rounds" (4 events). Presumably, this is done for ease of navigation and to break up the 'legs' of the season. However, I have no idea how we're going to split up this season given it is almost entirely on continental Europe. I would tend towards not splitting this season, but if it reaches its expected length of 15ā€“18 races it would be useful. Seasons such as 2001 that were not split resulted in big walls of text. However, if we are going to split it up, how will we go about it? One possibility would be to split it evenly into groups of 5 or 6 races labelled "Opening rounds", "Mid-season rounds", and "Closing rounds", but these are clearly less useful than the geographic labels.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 12:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Don Edmunds

Sources differ regarding Don Edmunds' date of death. Interested editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Don Edmunds#Date of death. DH85868993 (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Notes/Trivia

Noticing there is a return to trivia sections - again labelled as "Notes" in grand prix articles. Can a stop be put to this again and restore these "notations" to race reports? --Falcadore (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

100% agreement. Trivia/notes sections are against Wikipedia's policies. There is even a maintenance template for these sections asking editors to intergrate them into prose ({{trivia section}}).
SSSB (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Do you mean like the current version of 2020 Hungarian Grand Prix (permanent link in case it changes)? That article contains a whole 3 separate "notes" sections but I'm not sure there's much that could be done about them as they all really are just explanatory notes? Could you give an example of what you mean if not that? A7V2 (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
@A7V2: this is the kind of section I mean (but Falcadore may be targeting something different.)
SSSB (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes definitely that is just quite arbitrary trivia. Especially bad is "21 of the 24 race starters were race winners at some point during their career; the remaining three (Jarier, Stuck and Giacomelli) would all have podium finishes" - this could be done for any race, and where would one draw the line as to when to mention it and when not to?! I would definitely support removing these kinds of things, or at least put them in the report somewhere (but even then I'm not sure I'd bother mentioning unless it was something really interesting like the 1961 Dutch Grand Prix which has three things in the notes section, all of which are probably worth putting in the lede/report. A7V2 (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
A7V2 There should not be any dedicated Notes sections. Notes 2 & 3 in the first notes bit belong in the text. The third bit - the actual section titled Notes should be folded into the report as well. The championship standings note and the fastest lap note are fine. --Falcadore (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Falcadore: - I'm not sure I agree. For one, if there was no notes section, where would the note about fastest lap go? It has to go somewhere! And I would argue the note about the finishing positions of the two RPs Haases do belong on the table. The reasons for having to start from the pitlane should be in the prose, however (the qualifying positions are in the qualifying table anyway). I will grant that the reasons for the penalties probably don't need to be in the table, and could be moved to the prose but definitely the fact that the penalties were applied (and that this dropped them in position) should be there. A7V2 (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Also, while trivia sections are against the MOS, explanatory notes are not, eg see Help:Footnotes. A7V2 (talk) 08:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Where it is now is fine. It is about appropriate content. We shouldn't be using addendums to tables to display material in sentences when we have a race report that can fulfill the function. It is, frankly, lazy writing sticking notes about pit lane starts on the back of a table. --Falcadore (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused if we agree or not... I agree that the stuff about starting positions ought to be in prose, not a note, I just think the penalties (I am myself uncertain if the reason should be given) should be mentioned in notes on the table as well as in the prose. A7V2 (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Previous name of Racing Point Force India

A discussion has started at Talk:Racing Point Force India about what the "previous name" field in the infobox should say.
SSSB (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for Template:F1R2020

Hi, everyone. I have an idea how to make possible work the template {{F1R2020}} with "Complete Formula one results" tables in the drivers article. This is the demonstration of how it works. I don't went all WP:BOLD and implemented it because I am not sure if it is easy solution for our community to use in regular updates. But I believe that the benefit of updating all the data in one place is huge and prevails. I think it is ridiculous that we need to open and edit such amount of articles if a driver got a penalty for example. The line of code for Bottas Austria 2020 update if we decide to implement this:
| AUT = {{Coltit|FFFFBF|x=}} {{safesubst:<noinclude />#switch: {{{3|}}} | WDC = '''[[2020 Austrian Grand Prix|AUT]]'''<br>}}{{F1 race position|1|p}}

So, what do you think? Corvus tristis (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea of not having to manually update the driver results tables after every race, and having the tables auto-update using {{F1R2020}} (in the same way that the car results tables, constructor results tables and Championship tables in the season summary article do). However, I see a couple of issues:
  1. It makes the markup for each line of {{F1R2020}} quite complex (although, in reality, it's likely to be either you or me updating the template after every race anyway, so that's probably not that much of a problem), and
  2. For drivers like Hamilton, Bottas and Verstappen, the "2020" rows in their results tables will have "P" and "F" for pole and fastest lap (as well as bold and italics), whereas the rows for preceding years won't, which might cause confusion for some readers.
I think we might be better off sticking with manual updates to the driver results tables for the rest of 2020 and then have a discussion about whether we want to update the driver results tables (either for current drivers or all drivers) to use the "P" and "F" notation throughout. Alternatively, if people are happy for current driver results tables to use the "P" and "F" notation, we could probably update those fairly quickly (and populate the cells for the remaining 2020 races with {{F1R2020}}), and then have a discussion later on about whether we want to update all driver results tables to use the "P" and "F" notation. DH85868993 (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I've never had a problem with the P and F notation (personally I don't see any downside) but I do see a potential problem if only half of the results matrices use letters. It not so much a problem if different articles use a different style temporariy (so long as the new key is made clear) but it is a problem if Lewis Hamilton has 13 rows of just bold and italics and for row 14 we suddenly add Ps and Fs. Its confusing.
SSSB (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd rather continuing doing the results manually personally, but then I mainly focus on tables away from F1, 2 and 3 which do not receive such "quick" attention after a weekend. I'm not sure how it would work for other series either, take the WEC or GT World Challenge for example, not every driver either has a page or has a results table. Would you complete their results as well? I also dislike having P and L next to the number as it makes it look cluttered and clunky in my eyes and that's just in the tables on each series' page. Alright I understand not every driver has the amount of poles and fastest laps in their table that Lewis Hamilton has for example, but frankly I don't see what is wrong with bold and italics. If someone really doesn't understand, that's what the Key is for which is basically universal anyway. RewF12012 (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
As has been explained countlessly, using font variations like bold and italics is an accessibility issue. And in all honesty, I find it very difficult to spot bold and italics in some very large tables.Tvx1 13:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, well I've not been part of those explanations so forgive me for not knowing about what accessibility issue this would cause. And I'm sorry you have those issues with spotting fonts. However in my mind, some people may have equal issues in making out P and Fs with numbers as well. Unfortunately you can't please everyone. RewF12012 (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, we can't possible make everybody happy. However, through the discussions we established that using the P and F letters cater to more people than the font variations and thus we chose the former. We ignored the accessibility issue prior to 2019 because poles and fastest laps were supplementary information and not vital. However since then points were awarded for one of these concepts and we finally decided to rectify the accessibility issue.Tvx1 11:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • If we don't want the P and F notations in the driver articles, update all the tables with the templates to have this notations in all tables and have a code that a bit clearer we may use this solution. It leaves table in the driver articles exactly like it looks now. But it will require to add the information twice. Example of the code for Bottas Austria 2020 data:| AUT = {{Coltit|FFFFBF|x=}} {{F1 race position|1|p}} | AUT2 = {{Coltit|FFFFBF|x=}}'''[[2020 Austrian Grand Prix|AUT]]'''<br>1
Although it still makes our life easier because we don't have to open and edit 20 pages, we edit just one template. And we have more certainty that in all articles with the template is the same data, and it will be easier to spot if it is not. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd be happy with that. I wonder if it would be worth adding "WDC pos" (with appropriately coloured background) and "Points" (with appropriately coloured background) to {{F1R2020}} as well - that way we shouldn't need to update the driver tables at all after each race. (I'm aware there's already a "Points" field without a coloured background in {{F1R2020}} that's used in the Drivers' Championship table, but if we can have two versions the race result, I don't see why we can have two versions of Points as well). DH85868993 (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Support your idea. Do we really need to wait the start of 2021 then? I think we can wait till the week in Spa for the other comments. If we did not get arguments why we should not do it, we can implement it. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
In all honesty, I would support applying the P and F letters to all the pre-2019 tables as well. After all the current font variations in these tables are an accessibility problem.Tvx1 11:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I have nothing against despite I personally don't like it. But I can not deny the accessibility problem, so the letters is probably the only solution here. I am not that interested to do such task due to other wiki tasks, will be happy if someone will do it. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I think we could actually request a bot for that.Tvx1 13:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Tvx1:, Sorry for the long response, I wanted to think about it. My thoughts is to introduce my second proposal prior Spa as it is not so big step. Then after the finish of the season (to not confuse readers during the mid-season) we request a bot to do all the changes, and then create the F1R2021 template in the way of my first proposal. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
@RewF12012: The creation of the template does not require to make work of the template happen all the driver articles and/or result tables in them. I.e. you have articles for drivers A-Y, but you have not article for driver Z, then you update the data for all the drivers (A-Z) which will be featured in the drivers' and teams' standings and update the second parameter for the tables in the driver A-Y articles and just not creating parameter for driver Z. Also really don't understand what is the motivation behind the manual updates. It requires to do the same actions but with excessive opening, editing and saving, and you brought the information to the reader much slower. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
My motivation is because I enjoy doing it. The results tables, honestly are my only real thing I care about on driver articles. Why do you think I go through and do so many? I'm not contending that it would be simpler, but for my, shall we say, simple thinking mind in this case, it's like taking away something I enjoy. And frankly, I don't even know how to get to these templates. I'm just here to help out with what was a pretty simple thing to do. But there we go. I barely ever do F1, 2 or 3 anymore as they are done fairly quickly and now with these templates, potentially even faster. I get the P and F's being handy in the Championship tables on the championship tables, but I still don't see the need in the driver's tables. And you can say accessibility all you like, it doesn't change my opinion, sorry (mainly because I don't have any of these problems myself, but that is of course, not a particularly valid argument against). So clearly I can't nor do I really look to change anyone else's as it has already been discussed and changed. So when do these get rolled out to WEC, BTCC, NASCAR, Indy etc? RewF12012 (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I assume that if nobody will express interest to change the bold/italics in WEC, BTCC, etc than nothings gonna change. The same with templates, I see only the interest from WP:F1 community now, but not from WP:MOTOR (the editors who commonly updates result cells), so I would not push for it. My proposal now is only to create a template for interested editors, but I haven't time to update everything. If everyone fine with the current state, then would be it. Anyway thank you for your opinion on both F1 and other series aspects of the proposal. P.S. If you want to ask anything about templates in general, you may visit my talk page. Corvus tristis (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Having missed this conversation and now seen the driver results tables edited to include these templates, I do not think this is an improvement. There is now no way to edit these tables via the driver page. There isn't even a link to edit the template. This just makes it very hard (or impossible) for editors, especially new editors, to get involved. I've been on Wikipedia for 14 years and edited more driver tables than anyone else here (I created most of them) and now I have no idea how to edit that table. It smacks of a closed shop ā€“ "only those in the know can edit this table". Doing the updates manually takes seconds (I used to do an entire grid of drivers' tables in about ten minutes, before the podium ceremony) so I fail to see any advantage here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, the template gives us an opportunity to update, championship standings, results for entire grid, all constructors; and chassis' tables in five or even less minutes, this is the clear advantage within one template (by the way, while you have parameters for each cell you can use auto-change in any text editor to update them even quicker). Also it makes us certain about the data integrity across all of these pages. The templates are not that hard (it is just different namespace with slightly different markup, which can easily edit any user who knows how edit the table), so it is just a matter of a desire to spent few minutes to learn quite easy things. If you think that we need an edit button we may add it via {{Edit}}, but it may attract nonconstructive users too. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Only if you have the knowledge of where to edit. There isn't even a link to edit that template, so you have to be in the club, knowing where it is already. I don't see why doing everything instantly is an advantage, where is the guideline that says speed is important? There isn't one. Give me a material advantage with this system that is based in Wikipedia guidelines. It doesn't guarantee data integrity across all the pages because you make one mistake with the template and many articles are then wrong, like in the example I gave you. There you go, you want to exclude users you consider "non-constructive"; that is not how Wikipedia works. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Not correct anymore, it has the link now. Not all things are ruled by WP guidelines, if you think that the templates breaks any, then it is your burden to prove such breach. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Some improvement. I still don't see a consensus for this. Actually, everything here is governed by Wikipedia guidelines, unless you have another set of rules I am not aware of. Your burden is to prove that the community want this change, not for the community to prove anything at all. I see two editors against it, and a couple of others who have reservations. Some might say creating a system where one editor takes control of editing multiple articles in one hit, using a system not everyone understands, might be a violation of WP:OWN. As @RewF12012: implied, there was no real problem before. He and other editors are basically being told, "Hey you know that job you were doing, well I've devised a much easier way to do it. By the way, you now don't have a job." Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok, links to edits made it easier to understand the system and I have added them to driver articles. So your argument is outdated. It seems that you don't want to allow even to try this, so it looks like WP:OWN from your side as you believe that everybody should the edit tables the way you invented 14 years ago. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
No, my argument is not outdated: you followed my suggestion. There's a difference. No, I believe that everybody should edit. Full stop. What I am saying is (obviously) the exact opposite of WP:OWN. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, edited by multiple people. This template system is the antithesis of that, and I can never agree with it. After a race, one person makes a few clicks and that's it. Everyone else is excluded. You cannot deny that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
No, no-one is excluded. The templates arenā€™t protected in any way. Everyone is free to edit them. If some editor is too lazy to look for the correct place, itā€™s not our fault. This way of working is used by multiple project and is not at odds with any Wikipedia policy or guideline.Tvx1 16:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
One editor is required to make the edit to the template, therefore everyone else is effectively excluded. Claiming that other editors are "too lazy" to trawl through complicated templates that (until today) didn't even have a link to them is exclusive and unfair to inexperienced editors. For someone who carps on regularly about accessibility, that comment represents a double standard. I have still not received a single material reason why this is an improvement. I know other projects use them because I edit football tables. They changed the tables to templates so now they're counter-intuitive to edit and more time-consuming, they take up more space, and some other editors gave up because they didn't understand them. The editors who previously edited the tables were not consulted. The people who created the templates did so then disappeared, leaving the work to others. A work of inclusive genius. Whether it's against any guideline is immaterial; it is absolutely against the spirit of collaboration upon which this encyclopedia is built. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Another thing involved the template in the season article drivers' table. Whoever updated the template after one race this season got it wrong, and the table showed incorrect information. We then had to wait for someone who knew how to edit the template to fix their mistake, and the table was wrong for quite some time. The same thing will happen with the driver tables, it's inevitable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The mistakes are not dependable on the updating method and inevitable in any case. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
They are, but you are making it too hard for inexperienced editors to fix mistakes. We had very few problems with mistakes before anyway. I think this is a tech nerd "solution" for problems that didn't exist. I also don't see a consensus for it... Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Someone may say that the table itself a "tech nerd solution". Corvus tristis (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
It's a very simple way to show results. Results have to be shown. It needs to be no more complicated than that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I know it may switch on the trigger to link to other stuff exists, but I believe that I can here something more detailed than that. 2018 FIFA World Cup article has far more attraction than the same year F1 article in terms of edits and page views. Also it has quite a load of templates based on the same principle (i.e. Template:2018 FIFA World Cup Group A table). Is anyone complain that this is complicated and that it is not a table? Does anyone says that this is a violation of WP:OWN? Corvus tristis (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea what point you're trying to make. I do know those tables do not need to be templates. What's the point? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
The point is to edit one template instead of tables in 50 articles, instead of giving 49 pointless opening-editing-saving tasks each Grand Prix for fake inclusivity sake. Other words, probably learning how to drive a car it is not an absolute easy task for everyone, but not sure if it means that we all should stick to the horse. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
You're still not explaining why that is better. If it's too boring to edit, then don't edit. Other editors have no problem making multiple edits. "Fake inclusivity", what a nice phrase to use. Your analogy is utter nonsense, obviously. This is a collaborative exercise, whereas travel is not. I can't believe I had to explain that, absolutely shaking my head. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I have explained that already, if you not satisfied with the explanation then I can not help you. If it is too hard to edit, then don't edit. Other editors have no problem editing templates. Ok, if you are not good with getting into the heart of matter and want an exact collaborative analogy. You are proposing our community to use logs to cross an ocean all by themselves, while I propose to use the cruise ship, yes it is probably make us a bit dependable on a captain, but I think if we collaborate we can improve our cruise ship the way it will be easy to be a captain for anyone. Corvus tristis (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
That is an incredibly arrogant stance, I hope you are proud of it. I have no interest in editing stupid templates, I prefer to create content. You want this to be a club for people who are capable of more advanced editing, this, the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Plenty of editors struggle to edit templates, you just don't care about them. Admit it, like Tvx1 did. Hiding links to edit templates until you are prompted to provide them. You haven't adequately explained it, you just said it would be slightly faster. Speed is utterly irrelevant, yet you can't see that. You provide another ridiculous analogy, and I never asked for analogies in the first place. You seem to think I want stone age editing, I don't know where you get that idea from. I just prefer editing to be easy and straightforward for everyone. Self-appointed captains who spend time devising ways to exclude people operate to the detriment of all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Whatever, if you feel that such "content creating" is better for both editors and readers, you are free to revert my yesterday edits. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
That would be very petty. I just wish people here would have more thought for less experienced editors. Let's see how it progresses in use. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been cautiously supportive of the use of {{F1R2020}} in driver results tables (see above), but I'm not sure it's a good idea having an edit link embedded within the table; I think it's likely that we'll end up with edit conflicts and/or incorrect changes as editors (who may not understand how the template works) attempt to update their favourite driver's results while someone else is in the process of updating the entire template following a race. It's true that that could also happen without the edit link, but I think the fact that the edit link takes the editor directly to the template in edit mode makes it more likely. I'd also point out that we don't have edit links in the driver infoboxes (where the stats are updated via {{F1stat}}) and that system has worked well for years. DH85868993 (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This is kind of what I mean. You're worried about inexperienced people making mistakes because they don't understand the template, so the solution is not to keep it simple, but apparently to hide it so only the chosen few are likely to edit it. To me, that goes against the whole ethos of the project, and for negligible benefit. You will get edit conflicts, yes, because all the results are done in one edit, rather than spread around many pages. It just looks like this is aimed at excluding people who are inconveniently not as familiar with this stuff as they might be, and that is unfair. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I take your point. I guess it's a tradeoff of one, more complicated, more time consuming edit which updates multiple articles consistently all at once versus multiple, simpler, quicker edits in separate articles, which may result in inconsistency between articles. And different people will have different opinions on which is preferable. DH85868993 (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I expected a balanced response from you, and I got it. I do think though, that any inconsistencies caused by editing across multiple pages are rectified quickly enough so as not to be a real problem. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Engine nationality

Guys, do we have such thing as engine nationality? I have nothing against to say in the Honda article that Honda is a Japanese engine manufacturer or in Ford article that Ford is an American one (or British as it was built by Cosworth?), but in F1 all the flags means official FIA recognition. I haven't seen such in entry lists, only in F1stats which shows flags different from the article. Also there was a consensus for flags removal back in 2009. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Just because it's not FIA recognised doesn't mean it can't be verified. I'm sure there's alternative sources to use and engine nationality is just as significant as team/constructor nationality.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 11:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
No it isn't. Constructors' need a licence from a national motorsports governing body and they are recognized as a representative of their country through the playing of their national anthem after having won a race. None of that applies to engine suppliers'. Nationality isn't even always clear for them (e.g. Ford/Cosworth, TAG,...). We simply should not use flags for them.Tvx1 11:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
But what's the significance of constructor nationality?
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 11:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
They are directly representing their countries as evidenced by the playing of their national anthems. There is just no way you can claim that constructors' and engine suppliers are comparable with regards to nationalities.Tvx1 12:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)ļæ¼
Agreed. But then again, there is no harm to including them as we do with teams (which would be consistent).
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 12:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)ļæ¼
That's not how Wikipedia works. See WP:NOHARM. Moreover, that would just be to far off what MOS:FLAGS suggests us to do, because these simply are not representative nationalities.Tvx1 12:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOHARM appears to deal with verifiability and XfD rather than content, and as I said this would provide consistency over team/constructor/engine.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 12:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
No it wouldn't, because we would be applying MOS:FLAGS inconsistently. Moreover drivers and constructors each compete in a dedicated championship where they officially represent a nation. That's another thing that is not the case for engine suppliers. Another factor where they are fundamentally not consistent on. And there still is the issue of the verifiability. Some of these nationalities were simply assumed by the editor adding them through synthesis. The only thing you are concerned with is aesthetics (i.e. the tables should all look the same) and that simply is the least of our concerns.Tvx1 13:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Do we have any evidence for the national anthem being played for the constructor or the entrant? For example, in 1968 Joakim Bonnier Racing Team apparently entered Cooper-Maseratis, McLaren-BRMs and Hondas under a Swiss nationality, so would they have played the national anthem of the entrant or the constructor? Carfan568 (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Of course we do. It's called the podium ceremonies after the races.Tvx1 17:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I mean that do they play the anthem for the constructor or the entrant? Carfan568 (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
For the constructor of course. On-screen graphics only ever mention a winning driver and a winning constructor.Tvx1 00:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
That's not really evidence for it. The sporting regulations from FIA say that "The national anthem of the winning driver and winning team will be played. The Nationalities of the teams and drivers will be notified to the organiser by the FIA and will accord with Article 9.5.2 of the Code." In podium ceremonies the announcer mentions the entrant name, not the constructor, and the on-screen graphics do not show flags next to the constructors like they do for drivers. The official FIA and F1 websites don't list nationalities for constructors in the championship standings like they do for drivers. Also, before sponsorship liveries came to F1, teams painted their cars in the racing colours of the team, not the constructor, like NART did with the Ferraris in 1964 for example. If the constructors indeed do not have official nationalities, and we remove the flags from engine manufacturers because the FIA doesn't officially recognise their nationality, we should also remove the flags from constructors for the same reason. Carfan568 (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
What the sporting regulations refer to as teams as what we refer to as constructors. What the What the sporting regulations refer to as entrants is what we often refer to as teams. Aside of the drivers' championship there only is a world championship for constructors. The compete for the world title and represent a nation while doing so, not the entrants. Entrants have never competed in any championship. Watch any podium ceremony an you will see that they mention a trophy being presented to the winning constructor.Tvx1 20:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
In the competitors applications section of the sporting regulations it says that they must include "The name of the team (which must include the name of the chassis).", which clearly refers to the team/entrant. Just below where it says that they will play the national anthem of the winning driver and team, it says that they will award a trophy to "a representative of the winning constructor", so there is a clear differentiation between the constructor and the team, especially when they are so close together. So certainly the national anthems played on the podium are not good sources as the national anthem could well come from the racing license of the team/entrant. "The compete for the world title and represent a nation while doing so, not the entrants. Entrants have never competed in any championship." I know there is no championship for teams/entrants, but they have a racing licence, enter the cars and are recognised in official entry lists. And what source do you have that the constructors represent a nation? How do you explain that in for example this entry list Team Rebaque had a Mexican nationality and entered a Lotus, while the factory Lotus team's nationality was British? Also note that the official FIA and F1 websites and on-screen graphics on TV do not list nationalities for constructors in the championship standings and entry lists like they do for drivers. Carfan568 (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Carfan568: thank you for the sources, although I don't get it, why they are hidden and none of them confirms that TAG has any relation to Luxembourg, F1 stats claims that they are German. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you elaborate which sort of mentioning of engine suppliers' nationalities you are referring to? It's no really clear from the opening posts.Tvx1 11:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that putting nationality implies or requires official recognition, nor do I agree we should base our decision on the present day television broadcasts (not for the older seasons at least). However I do agree that engines don't need (and indeed shouldn't have) nationalities/flags in season, race, etc articles (but as Corvus tristis says in their initial question, of course things like mentioning Honda is a Japanese manufacturer in the Honda article is fine). Clearly drivers are representing their nationality, but I believe manufacturers are too. This is supported by reliable sources both in the present day (especially since they currently register in a certain country) but also historically: for example in the Temple Press "Classic Motor Races" books (French, Monaco, German Grand Prix) from the mid '60s they list the nationality of constructors in the cars appendices, however I've never seen engines presented this way. Also there's the issue of what nationality to give for Ford (probably other issues as others have raised also) of whether it should be USA or UK (where the engines were actually made). A7V2 (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Points in brackets

I believe that the decision to show RP's points prior deduction is wrong and confusing. If I see this information in brackets for the first time I should read the note anyway to understand what numbers are actual. So the better decision is to left this info for the note solely and show only the actual points which we can verify. I maybe wrong, as it is only my assumption but none of the sources tracks amount of points without deduction. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree. No sources keep records of points scored if penalties had not been issued. These points no longer exist therefore should not be tracked at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
How about McLaren in 2007? Keeping those points show what the constructor would have achieved and were they would have placed. It accounts for why total awarded points in the season doesn't match total points in the standings. Most importantly, it gives readers context on the team's actual performance rather than their apparent performance. I think it's appropriate to keep for context, and I do not see how it could be confusing.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 23:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I just don't think it should be in the table as it is a table of facts. Would haves and if onlys don't belong in it. This stuff is important but should be explained in text with a footnote. Again, do any other sources include points teams would have scored if they hadn't cheated? Their actual performance was that they cheated, so they didn't score any constructor points. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
But the points were still awarded, weren't they? So it would be suitable to report Racing Point's total before the penalty was applied, same as we did for McLaren in 2007.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 00:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @5225C: Thank you for this case, because it is combo. If you remember McLaren not only lost WCC points at all, but also lost the 15 points in Hungary, so basing on your logic we are obligate to show this fantasy points based on actual performance too and it will be "0 (McLaren points with deduction) (McLaren points without deduction)" and also move their row behind the Ferrari to give such context. On this case confusion is even bigger. 166 points are the points with or without Hungary deduction? Corvus tristis (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I believe that there should be two layers. The first is factual what we actually see in every source. Because it maybe just a reader who just want to quickly get the verifiable factual information without reading the note or trying to understand why he sees two or three different amounts of points. The second is the note (with an article itself as well) for the readers who desire to know the reason why McLaren has zero points. Showing points in the brackets is imposing of the information which I may be don't need at all. Like if I want to know what comes from 2x2 and calculator shows me 4 (5-1). Corvus tristis (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how this is confusing for a reader at all, even in the McLaren case as everything is adequately explained in the notes. This issue is very simple: the number itself represents the championship points, the number in the brackets indicates the total points scored before the penalty. This is explained in the note.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 08:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Once again, place yourself in the shoes of reader who wants just quickly retrieve factual information without reading a note and who does not know in case of RP meanings of each amount of points. From this side I don't understand why I should have distracting inverifiable info in brackets. If we already have note, the info in brackets gives us more help or overload us with unnneccesary stuff? I think that the note itself is quite explanatory already. Corvus tristis (talk)
Once again, this is not confusing. And if it is, that's what the note is for. No reader is going to be in such a rush they cannot take the additional few seconds to read the note.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 23:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I get that we won't agree on the visual aspect or that we can have situations in which haven't additional few seconds. But what on the factual side? Would you provide to us any reflection in the sources about 166 McLaren's fantasy points or 78 RP's fantasy points in the actual championship standings? Or you want to keep trivia in the table which against the policy? Corvus tristis (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not trivia. The points were awarded and then taken away. The brackets account for that.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 07:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Then provide the source that McLaren (As far as I remember McLaren hadn't 166 points at all, because the court was prior the season ending, so they were never awarded with this points) and RP were awarded with such amount of points. Otherwise they are imaginary points which do not exist. It is simple. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
McLaren drivers scored a total of 218 points, but the team was not awarded points after the Italian GP. So those points aren't "fantasy" they were the total McLaren had been awarded before that ruling and then had excluded. RP is in a similar situation that they were awarded points and those points were then excluded. At the moment, sources only discuss the points difference as of the British GP, so you could use that as an excuse to remove the bracketed points. However, if you're going to justify its inclusion/exclusion based on sources we'll be having this discussion again when there is inevitably some analysis of the penalty.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 22:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, your both wrong. While the total of points both drivers scored would have been 218. That number was never awarded to McLaren in any way. At the conclusion of the Italian Grand Prix (see 2007 Italian Grand Prix) they were officially credited with 166 points for the constructors' championship. A few days later they were stripped of all these points at a court of appeal hearing. Here is an official sources showing they did officially hold 166 points at one point.Tvx1 10:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
So the points were awarded and then removed. The points did, at some point, exist, and were counted. Then they were removed. What you've said is exactly what I've been saying.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 13:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, I admit that I haven't been enough attentitive to this detail. But what relevance of points awarded prior Italian Grand Prix to the overall season standings? It contradicts with your first goal to "show what the constructor would have achieved and were they would have placed". 218 points show what they would have achieved and were they would have placed, 166 points do not. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Because the team was no longer awarded points after the Italian GP, so those points never existed. Whereas the 166 they had before their exclusion definitely did exist and were awarded to the team.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 08:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I do not deny it, I just say that it does not serve the claimed purpose. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, with regards to McLaren in Hungary 2007, there was no deduction. They were penalized prior to the race and never scored any constructors' points at all there. Likewise, they weren't awarded any more points following their disqualification prior to the Belgian Grand Prix.Tvx1 09:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for correction, but it is not the point. The point is that this is bad both visual and factual solution to use. Can you even prove that this amount of points exists in the standings of any sources? I'm okay if we place this amount as an explanation, but it definetely should not be the part of standings table. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't really know why you ask me. I have no strong feelings either way. As long as we don't list points competitors were never awarded (as was the case for a long time for McLaren in 2007.Tvx1 13:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Isn't the precedent here rather worrying? Wouldn't this also have to apply to Michael Schumacher in 1997, or any "gross" points for 1990 and prior? Strongly keep the points in parenthesis. Spa-Franks (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, no. Schumacher was never stripped of his points. Only his position.Tvx1 17:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Can't see any reasons to be worried: 1. Michael Schumacher in 1997, 2. "gross" points for 1990 and prior. Both cases have reflection in the sources. Representation of the gross points we can probably leave for the different discussion. Now I'm worried more with the 2020 article, which brings us unverifiable trivia. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Infrequent editor here in the project throwing in an opinion. I don't think it matters whether or not the bracketed points are confusing or distracting. They just don't belong in the table. RP was penalized. Those points are gone. Has anyone found a source that's tracking them? If the sources aren't doing it, we shouldn't either. Yes, what happened is an important part of the season, so keep it in the note, but the bracketed total itself is trivia. --DB1729 (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, 100%. Particularly the point about other sources. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
There is only one points User:5225C. The points the team had at the time of the race in question. Anything and everything else is speculation, for which Wikipedia has a policy specifically about. WP:SPECULATION. --Falcadore (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Corvus tristis, can you please not make changes on this subject while this discussion is still ongoing? Thatā€™s just respectless.Tvx1 10:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

There are no signs, that discussion is ongoing since 21 August. How long should we keep irrelevant to the overall season standings and unsourced total in the standings for "respect" purposes? P.S. Please spell correctly my nickname. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
As long as it takes to form a proper consensus to remove them. I don't have that impression here. Moreover, you merely moved these totals to the footnote and edit entirely fictional constructors' tallies there. There was no support for that whatsoever.Tvx1 11:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
The longer I think about this, the more I feel that we simply cannot adopt one black and white rule that could be strictly applied to every such case that ever occurs in the history of the sport. Take the active example of Racing Point for instance. They officially held 42 points at the conclusion of the British Grand Prix, were docked 15 points a few days later and have now exceed their post-Great Britain total once again. Thus whatever points they end up at the end of the season + 15 points would be an entirely fictional total they were never credited with and the inclusion of that would be wrong. But in a case like McLaren's in 2007 were they did officially held a grand total of 166 which were later stripped in their entirety, following which they did not receive any more points I can still see some merit in listing it with a note that these were stripped.Tvx1 12:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
How is the total fictional though? Under the current scoring system, the team/constructor score is the sum of the points scored by the drivers. In Racing Point's case, they have been penalised 15 points from that total. The points clearly existed prior to their penalty, and the points were only taken out of the championship after they had been scored. Very similar to the 2007 McLaren case but with a portion instead of the entirety.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 12:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Simple questions: Do the McLaren or RP points exist in the real overall standings or not? Are the overall standings supposed to show any previous point totals or sum of drivers' points? Can we verify these bracket points in the third-party sources, that at 2020 Spanish Grand Prix RP scored 78 points towards constructor's standings or as 2007 Brazilian Grand Prix McLaren scored 166 points towards constructor's standings? Probably no. Then why McLaren's Italian points total should be in the column which shows us overall season points? As you said in the first place your goal was to "show what the constructor would have achieved and were they would have placed." 166 points in case with McLaren only leads to confusion which I have demonstrated accidentally, because this number is unnatural and counter-intuitive in the context of the other constructor's totals which are similar to the sums of the driver's points. 218 points show their possible achievements. I really don't understand why we have such long discussion, if nobody says that the note should be deleted. Why the note and text coverage in the article can't satisfy desire to show alternative points? Corvus tristis (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not true that constructors' results are simply the sum of the drivers' results. Mathematically that will often match, but rules-wise that's not how it works. The FIA scores these championships seperately. The constructors' results are actually the sum of all the results credited to each constructor for each Grand Prix.Tvx1 12:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I have missed the word "mostly/usually", I just described how looks the context. But it is not the point. Nor you, nor @5225C: haven't answered more important questions. So, I will repeat it again: 1. Are the overall standings supposed to show any previous point totals? 2. Why McLaren's Italian points total should be in the column which shows us overall season points? 3. Why the note and text coverage in the article can't satisfy desire to show this Italian total? I definitely can't understand why we can't use black and white rules which will be understandable for everyone and why you both against WP:VERIFY policy which clearly gives such black and white answers to these situations. Tvx1, argument is quite sophisticated, and I don't see nor why it justifies exception to avoid policies nor how it gets a support from community. If you feel that we are in the dead end with this discussion may be it is time to address it to WP:DRN? Corvus tristis (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Attendance figures

It's my understanding that most events with attendance figures are estimates, I don't see many primary sources for these and I don't think the organisers frequently release them. Do we include estimates? Let's say an estimate is a round number of 100,000, is that more generalised than an estimate of 105,000? At what point do we consider these reliable enough to include in the infobox? Obviously older races will probably have more leeway than modern races. FozzieHey (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

If it's an estimate, then it should be displayed as an estimate (so c.ā€‰100000 rather than 100000).
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 23:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. However most attendance figures either seem to be rounded or estimates but sometimes it's not clear in the sources. Do we just assume they're estimates if a figure isn't released by the organiser? FozzieHey (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I think that would be appropriate. Unless we have the exact number from the organiser/F1/local government, it should be treated as an estimate.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 23:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The thing is that even if they have an exact number (which they will) they are likly to round it (espically for on-screen graphics etc.), to the closest thousand or ten thousand. If its 100,917 or 100,000, most people don't care, its an error of less that 0.92% and 100,000. Its the same reason why in quali commentators say lap time of 1:15.1 and not lap time of 1:15.109.
SSSB (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
So do you believe it's not necessary to specify the number is approximate if it's only a small approximation?
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 12:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't really care. I was simply stating another thing we should consider. Personally I think it's obvious there is some rounding and estimation involved. Espically for street circuits.
SSSB (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Per MOS:UNCERTAINTY, even the official number (when available) should probably be rounded since they are unlikely to be as accurate as to the nearest one person, and such precision isn't really informative anyway. A round number generally implies that it has been rounded so no need to put "circa" either. The MOS does give an example where extreme precision could be kept, so for example if the attendance breaks an official record, or is otherwise specifically notable, it could be given precisely. A7V2 (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
That makes sense to me.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 22:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Most of the time attendances are not estimates, but the accuracy is highly questionable. Fortunately Wikipedia dodges the entire issue as if we round the number ourselves that becomes original research and not the thing wikipedia does. Take the number as sourced, not our own made up rounded number. --Falcadore (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
It is not original research to round numbers. MOS:UNCERTAINTY states: "Where explicit uncertainty is unavailable (or is unimportant for the article's purposes) round to an appropriate number of significant digits; the precision presented should usually be conservative. Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason.". Also given is the example of a population: "The city's 1920 population was 10,000 (not population was 9,996Ā ā€“ an official figure unlikely to be accurate at full precision)". If you feel that this constitutes original research then you'd better suggest changes to the MOS. A7V2 (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Further to my above comment, see Wikipedia:These are not original research#Simple calculations: "You may round to appropriate levels of precision..." A7V2 (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Alpine article

I have created a draft article at Draft:Alpine in Formula One. For now, I have created Alpine in Formula One which redirects to Renault in Formula One, and have put this link on the 2021 and 2022 articles.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 09:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@5225C: someone has created Alpine F1 Team.
SSSB (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I will redirect my draft.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 10:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Constructor nationality

Can anyone prove that the FIA officially recognise nationalities for constructors? The official FIA and F1 websites and on-screen graphics on TV do not list nationalities for constructors in the championship standings and entry lists like they do for drivers. The podium anthem is not a good source because the anthems could well come from the racing license of the team, and the sporting regulations state that the podium anthem is played for the team, not constructor. And if the constructors would have a nationality, why then for example in this entry list Team Rebaque had a Mexican nationality and entered a Lotus, while the factory Lotus team's nationality was British? If no one can prove that the constructors officially have a nationality, we should remove flag icons from them as we did with other manufacturers which don't officially have a nationality. Carfan568 (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Would agree that in the current state of F1, constructors and teams are synonymous?
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 23:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
(Copying from Talk:Formula One)
Teams ARE constructors in the past few decades. Although constructor and team were separate in the past, the specific articles you are editing are all ones in which every team was required to be a constructor. Hence the nationality of the team is the nationality of the constructor. The359 (Talk) 23:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Further, per your example of the Formula One sporting regulations, your say that entrants must include "The name of the team (which must include the name of the chassis)." This means that the name of the team must include the name of the constructor. The name of the chassis does not refer to the F1000 or E23 or FW38 or whatever each team wants to call their cars. It refers to the constructor name used in the full name of the chassis. We had this problem before of previously listing "Red Bull" as the constructor when the FIA recognized "Red Bull Racing" or "RBR" as the constructor. Your attempt to claim that the FIA considers the team and constructor to be separate is WP:SYNTH. Your repeated use of Rebaque does not negate that the line between entrant and constructor has merged since the 1990s. The359 (Talk) 23:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Despite being Australian and racing in Australian national colours, Brabham was always registerred as British. Racing teams need to be registerred to compete at every level of competition with ASNs. Below Formula One level teams have and can be registerred under multiple nationalities. It is hardly unusual for a team to be based in one country and registerred in another. Benetton/Renault - the "Enstone team" and Red Bull Racing are prominent examples. --Falcadore (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
So you can't prove it, but want to assume that the team's nationality is the constructor's nationality because recently multiple teams haven't raced for the same constructor? Well, if you look at entry lists when multiple teams raced for the same constructor, those teams had different nationalities. Also there is still a difference between constructor and team. For example, the constructor for McLaren is "McLaren-Renault", but the team is operated only by McLaren. Carfan568 (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Are you legitimately asking me to prove that teams have to construct their own car under current regulations? Rules change, you can't hold a single universal standard to cover all 70 years of Formula One. It's not even a recent change, it's part of the regulations, as you yourself demonstrated.
And yes, there is a naming difference between McLaren and McLaren-Renault, but are you arguing that they are not the same entity? I'd love to see you prove it. The359 (Talk) 14:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
McLaren the team and McLaren-Renault the constructor are the same entity. Same with all the other current teams.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 14:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm asking you to prove how this affects the FIA's recognition of nationalities. McLaren-Renault the constructor also includes the engine manufacturer. If the engine changes, it's a different entity in the championship, which has always been the case with constructors. Carfan568 (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Renault is an engine supplier.
Are you arguing that McLaren-Honda and McLaren-Renault are different teams? Or do you acknowledge that the constructor and the team are the same? The359 (Talk) 15:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
There are more than 80 mentions of "power unit manufacturer" in the sporting regulations. I'm not arguing that they are different teams, they are different constructors. Either way that wasn't really the main point. The main point was that can you prove how teams having to construct their own chassis under current regulations affects the FIA's recognition of nationalities. Carfan568 (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The "nationality belongs to constructors" vs "the nationality belongs to the team" is based almost exclusively on WP:OR (Rebaque in 1978 is not applicable). There is simply no telling who the FIA designates the nationality to now because in this context constructor/team are synonymous. As constructor/team are currently synonymous I see no evidence that the status quo (flags of constructors) should be disruptive.
SSSB (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Why is it not applicable? I can provide multiple other entry lists which have the same thing. Do you just happen to like the flags? "There is simply no telling who the FIA designates the nationality to now because in this context constructor/team are synonymous." There was evidence back when multiple teams raced for the same constructor, why should this be ignored? The official FIA and F1 websites and on-screen graphics on TV do not list nationalities for constructors in the championship standings and entry lists like they do for drivers, why should this be ignored as well? Carfan568 (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
There was evidence back when multiple teams raced for the same constructor, why should this be ignored? - because it was multiple decades ago. WP:AGE MATTERS, entry lists from the 70's can not be used to justify the removal of flags from 2020 Formula One World Championship (for example).
The official FIA and F1 websites and on-screen graphics on TV do not list nationalities for constructors in the championship standings and entry lists like they do for drivers, why should this be ignored as well? - we aren't ignoring them because they say nothing on the subject. Meanwhile I could argue that you are ignoring the national anthems on the podiums.
And for the record I don't like the use of flags next to constructors (I find constructor nationality meaningless as they can choose to change it at any time) but I see insufficent justification for their removal.
SSSB (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
entry lists from the 70's can not be used to justify the removal of flags from 2020 Formula One World Championship (for example)
Do you not realise that the flags are unsourced in the first place? And this wasn't only about the recent seasons, this was about F1 as a whole. No evidence has been brought that the FIA's recognition of nationalities has changed. Should we then remove the flags from the old seasons?
we aren't ignoring them because they say nothing on the subject
If they don't list nationalities for constructors in official entry lists and results tables, then certainly that is not evidence that they have a nationality, rather it points to them not having a nationality.
I could argue that you are ignoring the national anthems on the podiums
That is not evidence for either case. The sporting regulations state that it's the anthem of the team, so again this is certainly not evidence that the constructors represent a nation. Carfan568 (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Do you really think this is the first time this project has had this debate? Perhaps you should look up the past history of the subject instead of insisting it all be repeated for your benefit? I really think you should spend some time in the archives before any further responses. You'll find every answer to your questions.
Please. Just do it. --Falcadore (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to go through over 50 archived talk pages to start a discussion? If you know any relevant old discussions, then feel free to cite them. From the search that I did, I found this discussion where users also point out that the constructors don't have a nationality. Carfan568 (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
You went to the trouble of going through the sporting regulations about entry applications, yet you didn't find the specifics that say that all teams have to constructor their own car? Again, rules changed, what appliedin the 1970s does not apply today because Formula One is constantly evolving. The359 (Talk) 00:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Teams only have to make their own chassis under current regulations. No one has brought any evidence that the FIA's recognition of nationalities has changed, only speculation that they must have changed. Look at this entry list from 2010, still no nationality listed for constructors. Do you think that the flags should be removed from the old seasons, but left for the recent ones? Carfan568 (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Is it really neccessary for any of us to do it because you refuse to? --Falcadore (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
What exactly do you want me to find? I did a search and did not find sources/evidence that constructors officially represent a nation. Carfan568 (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Use of flags makes articles more legible and accessible to dyslexic or visually impaired readers

In amongst all of the debate surrounding flags this very simple fact seems to have been forgotten. ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:18B8:86EC:5BD1:68F7 (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

F1 cars on webpages

Why there are no links to car bookmark on official webpages of teams? AlphaTauri AT01 has no link to at01 or Red Bull Racing RB16 has link just to team webbpage instead of car bookmark. Eurohunter (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

If there is a car-specific webpage then that can be added.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 09:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Clarification of what is meant by the term "Grand Prix"

@Joseph2302: What did you find confusing about this edit that you had to revert it: [8]? I actually find the previous version more confusing, since the term "Grand Prix" can be used to denote both individual races and the series of similarly named races run in different years. So my edit was intended to clarify that. Please feel free to propose a different edit that would clarify this distinction in a better way. cherkash (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Cherkash's edits made the page less confusing.
SSSB (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I disagree, heading was "Grands Prix (race titles, not individual races)"- what does that even mean? Also, Cherkash changed the terminology to say we should only be covering World Championship races, which there is no consensus for, and Grand Prix makes a hell of a lot more sense than "title of a race". They mean the same thing, but Grand Prix is an understandable name, but "title of a race" is not. Also, project conventions shouldn't be unilaterally changed without a clear consensus to do so- changes in scope this radical (changing to only covering World Championship races) should only be done with a consensus, and probably an RFC. Rather than unilaterally from a user who seems only to unilaterally declare random things. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, some of it could have been improved but the term "Grand Prix" in that context is ambigous. Does it refer to the series of events (Italian Grand Prix) or individual events (2020 Italian Grand Prix).
Changes to project conventions need wider discussions, yes. But Cherkash's attempts to make the text less confusing worked.
SSSB (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: And with respect to my alleged change in terminology to cover WC races ā€“ this is not a change, but rather a clarification of terms. We have always intended to cover WC races, not just Grands Prix (which e.g. Indy 500s in 1950ā€“1960 were not). I even linked the explanation of why "WC race" is a more appropriate term than a nowadays generically used "Grand Prix": they have been synonymous for many years now, but not so in the first years of the World Championships. cherkash (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
What about all the races in Category:Formula One non-Championship races? They are all Grands Prix, but not World Championship races, and your edit has removed them from the scope of this project. This shouldn't be done without a consensus, and I would wholeheartedly disagree with doing so. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: No, they were not "all Grands Prix". Look at 1970 for example: none of the three F1 non-championship races that year were Grands Prix. cherkash (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
And so it would be easy to modify my clarification to include "F1 non-championship races" to the scope. Are we all good with this correction then? cherkash (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Slightly off topic but only slightly: @Cherkash: I noticed you changed the section titles in season articles from "Non-championship race results" to "Non-championship races results" - I can't put my finger on it but that just doesn't sound right and I believe is grammatically incorrect. What was your reason for making this change? A7V2 (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@A7V2: to answer your off-topic: Some seasons already had this version of this subsection's title ā€“ so I simply did this across all season articles for consistency's sake. I guess "races' results" may be more grammatically correct, although an attributive usage as in "races results" is also fine. "Race results" for multiple races is correct only if the word combination "race result" is treated as one semantic unit, but in this case "non-championship race" forms an indivisible semantic unit ā€“ which then serves as a qualifier (hence, an attributive usage) to the "results". And so it's "NC races results" (or "NC race results" for a couple seasons with a single non-championship race) that logically makes sense. cherkash (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@Cherkash: I don't know, it still sounds weird. Given that these are not actually a list of results, but a list of races (the only result listed is the race winner, the actual results are found in the report) why don't we just get rid of the word "results"? Then the heading is just Non-championship races. A7V2 (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@A7V2: I have no problem with that. Please have a go at it! cherkash (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Done except for '77, '78, '80, '81 and '83 as I wasn't sure if it should be plural or not (since in theory it's a list of "races" but there's only one on the list. It's not a big deal anyway. A7V2 (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I've fixed those years as well. cherkash (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I've had another go at the clarifications. Feel free to edit further to make it even betterĀ ;) cherkash (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Grand Prix results tables

What do you guys think is the better format for engine supplier results tables: this where the results are split by era of participation, or this where they are split by main team? Carfan568 (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Honda themselves consider 1983ā€“1992 (source) as the second era and 2000ā€“2008 (source) as the third era etc. StatsF1 does the same thing. Carfan568 (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Honda is a primary source, while Wikipedia:Independent sources prevail in such cases. Also has doubts about reliability of StatsF1 as you have added flag of Luxembourg for TAG Porsche, while StatsF1 says that they are German. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
That's why we have removed flags from engine suppliers. They simply do not have an officially registered nationality in the sport. In the case of TAG Porsche both Germany and Luxembourg would be technically correct as it had ties to both countries, but there was no official sort of representation.Tvx1 12:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Independent sources deals with notability, bias and promotional tone, and the topic here is not related to any of those. And it is not only Honda which considers the eras like that, here is another one. The sources which you added only confirm that Honda provided engines to certain teams for certain periods, they don't say anything about the manufacturer's era of participation in the sport. As for the TAG Porsche flag thing, first of all that is not relevant here, and secondly they consider the manufacturer as "TAG Porsche" while on Wikipedia it is just "TAG", just like they also differentiate "Ford" and "Ford Cosworth" and give different flags to them. Carfan568 (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments regarding which of the two formats is better and why would be appreciated. Carfan568 (talk) 07:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I prefer using the time periods.Tvx1 11:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Definitely prefer the time periods.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 22:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, I will add the time periods since it has received the most amount of support. Carfan568 (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I see a serious lack of the argumentation why it is better. But whatever, it seems like the usual way of achieveing "consensuses" here. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Races column in Career summary tables

Is the "Races" column in a driver's "Career summary" table, the number of races entered for the season, or the number of races started? My understanding was that it was number of races entered, e.g. Sebastian Vettel's career summary table shows 21 races for 2016 (when he was entered for 21 races but only started 20) and Felipe Massa's career summary table shows 10 races for 2009 (when he was entered for 10 races but only started 9). However the 2020 rows for the current F1 drivers show the number of races started, e.g. "1" for Nico HĆ¼lkenberg (who was entered for 2 races, but only started 1) and "8" for Carlos Sainz Jr. (who was entered for 9 races but only started 8). I was going to change the 2020 rows to number of entries, but thought I would check first. (And yes, I'm aware that the values are calculated using templates; I was planning to update the template calls, not just hardcode the numbers!) DH85868993 (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Personally I would support entries (staus quo). But the most important thing is to be consistent.
SSSB (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if we have status quo with entries, because all tables which I created had "Races" column which had starts' numbers, not entries\. I don't have any preferences, but I think that probably we should have unified terminology and change "Races" to "Entries" or "Starts" to avoid such confusion. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
If there are no objections within the next 24 hours, I'll change the 2020 rows for the current F1 drivers to show number of races entered, so that those tables are internally consistent; then perhaps we can consider updating all driver results tables and/or changing the column title as a separate exercise. DH85868993 (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Done (about 18.5 hours ago). DH85868993 (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Yep, should be entries - the acid test is the classic Gabriele Tarquini, as he has the most DNQs in F1 history. Spa-Franks (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Previous/Next race in infobox

There's no easy way to go from one Grand Prix article to the next. I was just on the 1996 Monaco Grand Prix page and if I want to read the page for the previous GP (1996 San Marino), there is no easy way, even though the template has the option within. I've gone through 10 random GP's and none have this information on the article. Ideally there would also be an option in the infobox to quickly go to the next instance of the race, so using my first example if I want to read about the 1995 or 1997 Monaco Grand Prix, there would be a link in the infobox for ease of access. ItsKesha (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsKesha: such an option is possible in the infobox and for some Grands Prix it is there (see 2019 Monaco Grand Prix for example). It simply hasn't been implemented everywhere.
SSSB (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
There's a succession box at the bottom of every race article with all the links. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Which isn't viewable on the mobile version. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
It is for my mobile.
SSSB (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Also mine. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

RM at List of Formula One records

I have proposed a page move of List of Formula One records. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Formula One records#Requested move 8 October 2020.
SSSB (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Linking Sponsors

I believe this discussion has been going on for some time now and there's no official guideline on this, so we might as well decide it here. Earlier today I talked to SSSB about it and we came to a conclusion, but then Island92 reverted these edits. I then realized it wasn't the first time such changes were made, but there's no clear rule about it (and also to avoid breaking WP:3RR

I personally believe it's not a case of WP:SEAOFBLUE because it is information after all. One reading the arcticle may wonder why, for example, a team is named Orange Arrows - and by just hovering over the link they'll notice it's because of a sponsor and not just a color. That kind of information could be obvious for those who know Formula One but the article isn't written just for them, right? Horcoff (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on your edits to the 2020 article, I can definitely say they are not WP:SEAOFBLUE violations because they do not immediately follow or precede another link. I have seen no indication of any consensus against their inclusion, and given that the entire purpose of wikilinks is to connect related pages it would seem very reasonable to link the sponsor names in the entry list.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 04:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
So long as there is no WP:SEAOFBLUE violation I'm perfectly happy to see the wikilinking of sponsors.
SSSB (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I would say do not link them per MOS:PARTIALNAMELINK. Having a link in the middle of a team name looks a mess, and is misleading. The place for the link to the sponsor is where they are discussed in the article about the team. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Problem is some sponsored team names completely obscure the race team and links to the race team should always have priority over the sponsor.
And just by-the-by, why is it not a WP:SEAOFBLUE violation. The Irish Chess Championship example in Sea of blue is an almost exact match. --Falcadore (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Because in the edits done by Horcoff (linking the sponsor name in the entry table, "Entrant" column) the sponsor was the only part of the name that was linked.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 11:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion concerning this WikiProject

Dear fellow editors, concerns have arisen over the way some of the tables in our season articles are handled during the FA review for the 1982 season article. I know, these tables have been the topic of hot debates in the past, but maybe dealing with the issue during a FA review can help settle some things once and for all. Feel free to chip into the debate. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you primarily referring to the use of {{flagathlete}} next to teams/drivers (to supplement flagicons) and the key for tyre manufacturers? Lazer-kitty (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
That was one of the issues. But apparently, the tables also lacked readability for screen readers per MOS:ACCESS. You can see in the 1982 article what I've done to fix this. Also, per MOS:ACCESS, bold and italics alone should not be used to denote pole position and fastest lap, as we've done for a long time. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Car vs Chassis

Going to carry over the discussion from Talk:2021_Formula_One_World_Championship#2021_car_chassis as it affects a lot of articles in the project. My understanding is that the "Chassis" column under each years article should be called "Car" as the articles linked describe the car and not the chassis itself. I don't know why it was called chassis to begin with as all of the articles linked have been mentioned as cars, which contains both information about the chassis and the power unit / tyres etc. Should we change this? FozzieHey (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the definition of chassis excluding the engine, and the car including it. However, how does your naming system work in seasons when chassis were used with multiple engines, such as Minardi in 1985? The chassis remained the M185, but it was used with two seperate engines. Changing the title to car would be fundamentally wrong, because by your definition there are two separate and distinct cars, but still only one chassis. M185, RB16B, and any other designation you can think of does refer to the chassis. Simply because chassis is now mostly synonymous with car does not make it true for previous seasons and doesn't mean we should change the header. Remove the engine from the RB16B and it doesn't suddenly become a different car, it's still an RB16B.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 22:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
There will actually be that very case next year with the McLaren, switching from Renault to Mercedes power units... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Assuming they keep the MCL35 chassis designation, yes it will.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 09:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Then you're also assuming that they won't bring any major updates that will warrant a new designation. There should at least be another section for the 2021 car in the article, then we can just link to that. FozzieHey (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't see the need to change it all the way back, as you said it doesn't make it true for all previous seasons. FozzieHey (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
But as Zwerg Nase has pointed out above, it's quite possible that we might face this situation next year. I think the suggestion that we should go through every season and change the header based on whether or not a chassis was used with multiple engines a bit stupid to be completely honest. As I said above, the car designation is the same as the chassis designation, so there's no real issue here to be solved. In fact, as is the case with many old seasons and perhaps even next season, changing the header would make less sense than leaving it as is.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 09:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Where does it say that the car name is for the chassis as well? Unless I'm misinterpreting something. The entry lists do list chassis and engine separately. FozzieHey (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The entry lists do list chassis and engine separately. - So? FIA entry lists could consider car and chassis to be synomous and engine to be independent of both.. Whilst I am not aware that it say[s] that the car name is for the chassis as well. Nor am I aware that the opposite (the car name isn't for the chassis as well) is said anywhere. We therefore go on what secondry sources say (which we ought to do anyway if there is any doubt). What do secondry sources say?
SSSB (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm going off the premise that the article linked in the column that says "Chassis" is for the car and not the chassis. Most secondary sources will mention "car" when talking about the RB16 for example. FozzieHey (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was talking about its usage as a term. When we discuss the VF-20 for example, in most situations it's intuitive that the name refers to the car as a whole. In other contexts, however, it's clear the name refers specifically to the chassis. It's the same designation (same name) regardless of how we're using it. So in the entry tables on the season articles, it is most appropriate to discuss the chassis (no engine) since the car (with engine) can change either in-season (e.g. 1985) or over seasons (possibly 2020/21), as we've discussed above.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 10:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I get that but I don't see why we're linking to the article about the car in the chassis section. The article we're linking to talks about the engine too? For example with Minardi in 1985 we link to Minardi M185 which mentions the fact that the engine was changed. FozzieHey (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
But isn't it natural for an article about an F1 chassis to cover how the chassis was used?
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 12:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
All of the articles are about the car as a whole and not specifically the chassis. If an engine manufacturer changes mid season then so what? We're still linking to the same article and it's about the car over the whole season. As for the 2021 season there's still either going to be a new article made for the car or at least a section in the existing cars article. FozzieHey (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Then wouldn't that suggest, by your definition, that multiple cars share the same article? Or would it be more accurate to say the article covers the chassis and its usage?
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 22:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a solution in search of a problem. Chassis is the common term, chassis is the term used on the entry sheet, I don't see any possible reason to change it. And frankly I think it's a moot point anyway because chassis design encompasses every aspect of the car, including engine and tires. They're not Legos. It's all one unit. Lazer-kitty (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

You've hit upon the nub of the problem by accident. Because once upon a time Formula 1 cars were not all one unit. Cars were produced by race car manufacturers, Brabham, Cooper, Lotus, March etc, to suit a number of different engine combinations, BRM, Climax, Cosworth, Maserati etc. And the nomenclature - the Constructor continues to this day long past the garagiste era. --Falcadore (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
And? Where is the supposed problem? Where is the confusion? Do you think readers are coming here and seeing the "Chassis" header, clicking through to a chassis page, and being shocked and aghast that engines are mentioned? What are we even discussing here?
The word "chassis" is used interchangeably to mean both the car as a whole and the part of the car minus the engine/tires/etc. The idea that the chassis is specifically only the latter is not a fact, it is the personal definition of a few editors, and it's not supported by the way the word is commonly used. Furthermore, the primary source of the entry table is the FIA entry list, which uses the term "chassis" and not "car." And again, no one has actually explained what we would improve in practice if we implemented such a change. I fail to see how this is even a discussion. Lazer-kitty (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Wiktionary disagrees with you. --Falcadore (talk) 05:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I hesitate to even reply to this but I feel like I must given how frequently editors on this website interpret silence as consensus. It should go without saying that Wiktionary is not the source we use to determine how these terms are commonly used in F1. And again - what problem are you trying to solve? Go ahead and focus on this second bit, please, because not a single one of you have actually explained why we should change this or how it would improve the article. Not only is it pedantry for the sake of pedantry but it simply does not reflect how these terms are actually used. Lazer-kitty (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Names used to refer to circuits.

This came up on the talk page for the 2020 Formula One World Championship with regards to Istanbul Park being referred to as Intercity Istanbul Park despite the fact that the "Intercity" part just seems to be the title sponsor.

However moving on from this it may make sense to have some discussion about how different circuits are referred to, especially where WP:OFFICIAL and WP:COMMONNAME are involved.

Some cases seem comparatively clear cut, for example avoiding using the unwieldy Autodromo Internazionale Enzo e Dino Ferrari every time Imola is mentioned in prose, instead using a phrase like "the race was held at the Autodromo Internazionale Enzo e Dino Ferrari in Imola, Italy" before defaulting to "the Imola circuit" or just "Imola" for the rest of the article.

However in other cases it's less clear cut what the optimal way to refer to the circuit is, especially in the case of circuits which have changed names multiple times. In particular there's the issue of clarifying that the Red Bull Ring and A1-Ring are actually just different names from different eras for what is to all extents and purposes otherwise exactly the same track, and that the Ɩsterreichring name refers to a previous layout of that same circuit. This gets even more complicated when the Zeltweg Air Base circuit is also taken into account.

Personally I am loathe to use title sponsor based names more than is necessary throughout articles, given that they are liable to change (sometimes frequently) and their status as the most commonly used name of a venue or event can often be questionable, however if the title sponsor based name can be shown to be the most commonly used then that is entirely reasonable.

There are also some tracks where the most commonly used name is unclear. I feel like I see Paul Ricard and Le Castellet both used more or less equally often in media discussing the track, for example.

2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:BC36:9640:120:F44C (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Red Bull Ring is not a sponsor name. They own the circuit. Itā€™s simply the ownerā€™s name.Tvx1 20:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I was the one who last moved Istanbul to Intercity, because the official FIA source said the circuit name had it. Either way, I'm open to keeping either. Admanny (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
FYI, the article was moved back to Intercity Istanbul Park a couple of hours ago. DH85868993 (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's an interesting question/problem posed by the IP editor. Definitely where possible we should use the common name, which in these cases would be just "Istanbul Park" and "Red Bull Ring". But for others I think the problem comes from the ambiguity of a question like "where was the race held", and I believe historically many would always use a geographic name, whether that was official or not (hence why Paul Ricard is often known as Le Castellet, for example). There are many other circuits just amoungst those which have held world championship races where they have more than one name, eg Algarve/PortimĆ£o, AutĆ³dromo JosĆ© Carlos Pace/Interlagos, Charade/Clermont-Ferrand etc. I'm not sure how these could be included in a way which would indicate they are the same without causing undue clutter, or using historically inaccurate names in different places (often there is a good reason for the name change, eg Reims-Gueux to Reims when the new layout bypassed Gueux), but I think we could at least add these alternate names to List of Formula One circuits, in particular when the name used in the season articles are different, eg with RBR/A1/Ɩsterreichring.
On the topic of not using sponsorship names, I wonder then if Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya should have "Barcelona" removed as a source within the article states "Barcelona" was only added due to sponsorship [9]. A7V2 (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I would argue that the common name is Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya (I.e. the commonname is the official name, with the sponsor of Barcelona).
SSSB (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how Zeltweg is relevant to the Red Bull Ring. They are in close proximity, but it ends there (we never refer to either simply as Styria circuit).
Circuits should use commonname in all cases (regardless of whether it is also the official name or not, but sometimes this is ambiguous. In this case I think either would be acceptable.
SSSB (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

RM at Intercity Istanbul Park

I've just started a requested move to move Intercity Istanbul Park to Istanbul Park.
SSSB (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

To save a click and a scroll, the discussion can be found at Talk:Intercity Istanbul Park#Requested move 10 November 2020. A7V2 (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Article on Mercedes-Benz in Formula One

The article Mercedes-Benz in Formula One is currently only a start-class article, which considering it is the primary article covering the team which has now won the past seven World Constructor's Championships should probably mark it as an article in serious need of improvement.

On top of this, the article as it currently stands is likely to prove somewhat confusing to a reader who does not have a deep existing knowledge of the sport and its history who just wants to find information about the current team (or indeed about the 1950s team). I did some copyediting to the lead which made it a fair bit more coherent, but regardless the problem stands that we currently have a single article attempting to encompass the history of the Daimler-Benz AG team of the 1950s, the Mercedes-AMG team of the 2010s, and the history of Mercedes-Benz as an engine supplier in Formula One.

The engine supply side is primarily detailed at Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains, and it may be worth seeing if the Mercedes in Formula One article could be made more coherent by moving some of its contents to that article.

The question of whether the Daimler-Benz and Mercedes-AMG teams should have their histories detailed in the same article is one which does need to be asked however. At present Team Lotus, Team Lotus (2010-11), and Lotus F1 are all treated as separate entities, and since the 1954-1955 Daimler-Benz team never competed in the constructor's championship (which wasn't created until 1958) the need to retain the continuity seen in reliable sources between the three different incarnations of Renault in Formula One is less pronounced. Retaining the Mercedes-Benz in Formula One article as a more general overview while creating separate articles detailing the two eras may make the subject easier for those who lack specialist knowledge to understand. 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:DDA:D67F:428F:41C7 (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Re-visiting support series listed on yearly articles

It has come to my attention that the W series is going support 8 F1 races in 2021. This reminds me of a lengthy discussion here in which ideas were thrown around but came to a (shoddy) conclusion that if a series supports half of an F1 season it is listed in the infobox. That discussion was held in January 2020, before the pandemic messed up everything. This brings to me two concerns:

  • The 2020 Porsche Supercup only supported only 8 races, less than half of the 2020 season. Thus by the discussion's conclusion, it should not be listed in the infobox over at 2020.
  • With the announcement that F2 and F3 will hold triple-race weekends, this makes both series' 2021 seasons definitely less than half supporting races than the planned 23 in F1. F3 is at 7 races, F2 is at 8 races, W series is at 8 races, would it sound logical to include W series now over at 2021? Or edit criteria for what is listed in the "Support series"?

I have no idea where to begin, but I feel this should be addressed now. Admanny (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

You got confused, the conclusion was a series counted as a support series if more than 50% of the support series races were run in support of an F1 weekend. (So 100% of Porsche Supercup races are run in support of an F1 race). I see no reason to change that. ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSB (talk ā€¢ contribs) 07:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
My bad, in that regard I assume W series should be listed in support series category then? Admanny (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Edit: they never revealed how many races are actually going to occur. We wait then. Admanny (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
We wait. They have confirmed 8 F1 slots so if they have a 16 race championship, they no longer qualify (consensus was more than 50%).
SSSB (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Honestly if a series is supporting 8 rounds of the championship then I feel like it should be included on the list of support series regardless unless said support series has 30 rounds in total or something absurd. Rather than being tied solely to the proportion of rounds of the series which are support races for a Grand Prix some sort of sliding scale should probably be established. It would seem strange for a 3 round series where 2 support Grand Prix to be included on the list of support series but for a (obviously hyperbolic and hypothetical) series which supports every single Grand Prix to not be included because only 23 of its 47 rounds are supporting Grands Prix. 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:514F:3A7:8D8D:C406 (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Highest top speed during a race

Is there consensus that the highest F1 top speed during a race is 372.5 km/h by Valtteri Bottas at the 2016 Mexican GP, per Talk:List of Formula One race records#Highest top speeds and the supporting reference ([10])? If so, then I'll update 2005 Italian Grand Prix (which still identifies RƤikkƶnen's top speed of 370.1 km/h as the highest-ever speed recorded during an F1 race) and 2016 Mexican Grand Prix (which doesn't mention Bottas' record). DH85868993 (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Is that source sufficient? It only gives the speed traps for that race. Would be interesting to know what the top speeds in Baku since then were for instance. All I know is that 2016 European Grand Prix, which was written by me back then, lists Bottas' 378 kph as a record in all sorts of sessions. I am not entirely sure if that is still a record? Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The problem with these is that Bottas' spedometer may have hit 378, but speeds aren't recordered over continous time. Speeds are only (officially) recorded at 4 points, the speed trap, and the three sector splits. Unless we have video evidence of live speed data these speeds (as likly as they are to be top speeds) aren't actually the outright top speed (the speed trap is placed as an estimate of where top speeds will be achieved but if you move the speed trap further down the straight you will get a fatest speed. As evindeced by 2016 European Grand Prix where the spped trap speeds were lower than the ones recorded at the s/f line.
SSSB (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I would strongly argue that all "records", whether they be in specific record articles like List of Formula One race records, or in other articles, unless they are the most mundane, obvious of record (ie who has won a race the most times), they should always be accompanied by a reference to a reliable source verifying not only the number but that it is a record. It is (in my opinion) WP:OR to state something like "since it is verifiable that Bottas reached this speed, and I can't find an example of a car going faster, that it must be a record." I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just saying it is an extra step to go from saying Bottas travelled at 372km/h to saying that the speed record (however we are defining that, which we shouldn't be doing anyway...) is 372km/h. A7V2 (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, generally if a record is easily verifiable then reliable sources will report on it anyway, even if we don't strictly need reliable sources to directly say "Lewis Hamilton has won more Grands Prix than any other driver" to be able to verify that he has just by counting how many race wins reliable sources say he has versus how many they say every other driver has. However when it comes to something like "highest velocity achieved by a Formula One car during a World Championship race" then unless you have multiple reliable sources reporting concurrently with one another on the matter then it's best to assume it's not something which is verifiable enough to belong in a general purpose encyclopaedia rather than an episode of QI. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Should there be an article on the general concept of team principals?

Or is there already a suitable equivalent article under a different title which could be used as a wikilink for discussing team-principals. It may seem obvious to someone with a background knowledge of F1 what a team-principal is, but to an outsider it may not be and it'd be nice to know where to link to. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the Glossary of motorsport terms?Tvx1 11:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
"Team-principal" isn't actually included there. Some general page about sport team bosses could be just as appropriate. It's just a potential jargon term which currently lacks a clear wikilink to direct it to. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I've added team principal to the glossary. Note that it isn't hyphenated.
5225C (talk ā€¢ contributions) 11:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Unlinked qualifying tables

An editor has kindly added qualifying classification tables to about 20 race report articles (see here for a list). However, in the tables, the drivers and constructors are not linked, per WP:F1 standard format. I'll probably get around to adding the links in the fullness of time, but I thought I'd mention it here, in case anyone wanted to help out. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@DH85868993 I have noticed this as well, mainly for over half of the 1975 Championship. I will try and work on this and get those ones fixed by the end of this week. FORMULA1FAN71 (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Do Withdrawn Entrants get mentioned in any of the tables (Qualy or Race)? Or are they left out?

I have noticed in 1975 Championship specifically that Maki Engineering, as per the Constructors Championship, Withdrew (WD) from Belgium and Zandvoort. But in neither articles was it Mentioned. As well, and not told in my title, the driver for these two rounds (Dave Walker; no source found yet) isn't in the entry list for the championship either. So the question is, should Dave Walker be mentioned as an Entrant in the championship or qualy result as WD like the 1994 Monaco GP with Heinz-Harald Frentzen, or excluded? FORMULA1FAN71 (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: As of now, I have added the Dave Walker results + more on the 1975 Championship page, Maki Engineering page, and his own page as well, just in case this is accepted. I have also found sources for this as well and some even saying it was a Did Not Arrive rather than Withdrawl. FORMULA1FAN71 (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One/Archive_53&oldid=994705378"