Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

Lap leader charts

During the GA review of 2015 Mexican Grand Prix, the reviewer Saskoiler suggested a caption to be added for the lap leader chart. I do not really consider this necessary and I also do not know if it is technically possible, so I wanted to get your thoughts on it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, why would we need a caption? The "Lap Leader" title I think makes it clear enough, we'd just be repeating that surely? CDRL102 (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

British racers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Due to an ongoing discussion at Tom Pryce, I'm seeking a consensus (or lack there of) for making an exemption for British racers' infoboxes.

Should we have it in the infoboxes of British racers - nationalities & flags of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales? See Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

No, i.e. Oppose. They never raced in F1 under those flags. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. This would just create unnecessary confusion. There is no guideline, let alone policy, explicitly requesting this. The FIA follows legal nationalities of sovereign states and we should reflect that. For UK drivers with substantial pride over their ethnic "nationality", it can detailed in the prose and even in the lead. However, there are also many drivers like Lewis Hamilton, Jenson Button, Damon Hill, etc who never mentioned anything about their British sub-nationalities. Adding a second nationality field in their infoboxes would be plainly ridiculous. It would also be confusing with drivers, like Bertrand Gachot, who actually have represented different nationalities at different points in their careers. On a side note, I don't believe this is an issue exclusive to F1. The FIA uses nationalities of sovereign states in all motor racing classes it governs. So do the FIM. Therefore, I believe it would have been better if this were raised at WT:MOTOR, not here.Tvx1 18:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I won't object to creating a mirror of this RFC at WT:MOTOR. If you know how to do that? go for it. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you could transclude this section there.Tvx1 21:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

That’s why I included a link in my previous post.Tvx1 22:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not much of a techno type. It's best that you do the deed. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Really not difficult. But you're not going to learn it like this.Tvx1 16:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons cited here, essentially just create a separate entry -- so is that "done" and this discussion closed and resolved? Please clarify, because there is a lot of discussion that still followed here. Gratefully Aboudaqn (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Just use prose to properly explain the issue and avoid corrupting the purpose of a Formula One specific infobox/template. It is not difficult. --Falcadore (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I am also quite concerned about the precedent that this could then be used by poponents of American states, Canadian provinces, English counties, French departments and so on. --Falcadore (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, Belgian regions springs to mind as well. Stoffel Vandoorne could become a Flemish driver and Jacky Ickx a Brussels driver.Tvx1 22:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Presumably, because you raise it in this project, you mean in the "Infobox F1 driver" infobox, and I would say no to that as that is for the nationality used to get the racing licence, which for the nations of the UK you mention, would generally be British. However, as with the case in the "Tom Pryce" article, that must never get in the way of using the person's own identified nationality (if reliably sourced and given due weight) in the associated "Infobox person" template, where by-the-way and per WP:FLAGCRUFT, would not be accompanied with a flag. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

You've presumed wrong. This RFC is for the entire infobox of British F1 racers. Thus my reason for making this a bio matter as well as car racing. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

As has been explained very clearly to you, the fact that the infobox is coded as two nested infoboxes is NOT clear to the readers in any way. That is editor knowledge only. There is nothing in the infobox as seen in the article has no visible distinction between a "person infobox" and a "F1 driver infobox". Therefore adding a second nationality field nearby would be utterly confusing. In fact, I don't even know why the "Infobox person" part is there in the coding. It can be produced identically using just the "Infobox F1 Driver" template. Moreover, the more I look at other articles, the more it looks like Tom Pryce's article was an exception in using the Infobox Person coding. Others like Lewis Hamilton, John Watson, Jim Clark and many others don't have that coding at all.Tvx1 12:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure I remember a discussion like this previously about another British driver's nationality (can't remember who though). Had a look at some Scottish drivers and it's been brought up on the talk pages of David Coulthard, Dario Franchitti, Colin McRae and Jackie Stewart - but all the Scottish F1 drivers have British as their nationality in the infobox, beside the link to the Super Licence page. It should stay that way with all of the British drivers. Boothy m (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as with most sports, the sporting nationality of an F1 driver is the only one that matters. Which is why Max Verstappen is listed as Dutch, despite being born in Belgium, and Nico Rosberg being listed as German, despite being half-Finnish. All F1 drivers competed under British flag, not the English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish flags, and so that flag is of little importance. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Just to note that, and to avoid confusion, Tvx1 has, despite my personal request to them, removed the "infobox person" template from the Tom Price article even though this discussion is still ongoing. That template had been in the article for 11 months, and its presence is mentioned in this discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

This entire section is a crass exercise in discussion forking. This issue does raise good questions, but the discussion already well underway at the Tom Pryce page is a perfectly fine venue for working these out. The Pryce situation is a very nicely encapsulated exemplar of the issues raised and can easily be used as a template once things have been thoroughly thrashed out there. Please don't waste people's time by requiring that they say everything twice. Pyrope 12:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree with having Nationality = Welsh in the Biog Infobox, and 'Sporting Code' + Union Jack F1 Infobox, as he certainly did drive for Britain / uk. This is the 'compromise' refered to on the Pryce Talk page.

Agree with Pyrope that this is a fork. Sian EJ (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

As has been explained both here and at Tom Pryce's talk page, the readers only see one infobox, not two, even if it's code as two nested ones. That difference is not clear and thus it creates confusion. It's obvious that those supporting the inclusion of Welsh in the infobox are clinging desperately to that "infobox person" code because it's the only argument they have in favor of their stance. And including code solely for this purpose solely in that article is just poor editorial practice.Tvx1 19:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. 'Poor editorial practice' (User:Tvx) is the sensoring of information about the person. You suggest that a clear difference is made between the person and the driver in the infobox. @Pelmeen10: suggested something similar on Pryce's Talk page. It can be done simply by stating:

Nationality = Welsh

Licence / Passport / Citizenship = British.

but to sensor one or the other in the infobox equates to bias and providing the reader with mis-information. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Your accusations are utterly hilarious. Firstly because his Welshness is celebrated throughout the article. Secondly, because you are apparently unable to even spell censorship. Nothing is being censored here. Stop seeing this a personal thing.Tvx1 20:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose I cannot see how it is censoring to leave out irrelevant information. Wales is not a nation state, so it is ridiculous to enter "Welsh" under nationality. There is no bias there, it is simply the fact of the matter. There might be Welsh people who do not like that fact (and plenty of Scottish or Catalan ones at that), but Wikipedia is not the place to fight out those arguments. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Just noticed this. There is no reason to have an Infobox person because there's effectively nothing in it. It would only exist to make a point. The F1 infobox suffices in all cases. Where two nationalities exist (Romain Grosjean, Nico Rosberg) then the sporting nationality (or whatever term you choose to use) goes in the infobox, and any other nationalities are explained in the prose, usually the lead. Once we start having dual or supposed "preferred" nationalities in the infobox, we risk confusing the reader and creating a precedent for relative chaos across F1 driver articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Neutral - I've no objections to making an exemption for Tom Pryce if such an exemption includes all British racers. I do oppose the 'self-identification' argument for these articles. The F1 should be the decider of racers nationality. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose The flag is likely to be taken as nation of birth, which it isn't (necessarily), & that's likely to create confusion. There's enough ignorance out there now; let's not add to it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New article for Racing Point?

It's been confirmed that Force India has changed its constructor name to "Racing Point" via the 2019 FIA entry list, considering its a new constructor shouldn't a new article be created? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Racing Point is the new article. It just needs to be renamed. Force India already exists as an old article. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be classed as a former constructor though? (the 2nd Force India), we've always created a new article for new F1 constructors. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Spyker F1 covers their history from buying out MF1 to when they started as their own constructor the following year, until Force India bought the team out. So, no. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I have renamed the article to reflect the above and moved to Racing Point Formula One Team AdamComer (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

AdamComer, why didn't you wait to see what consensus develops here? This discussion has only been ongoing for about 11 hours, and with only two contributors, each with a different view - so there is no consensus yet! -- DeFacto (talk). 11:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "Racing Point" would be a different team to "Racing Point Force India". Despite there was no buyout in the intervening period, they still have a different name, are therefore a new constructor and should therefore have its own separate article. Unfortunately we cannot refer back to previous cases because as far as I am aware (and I could be wrong) but there is no previous example of where a team has changed its name having raced under a different name after a buyout. Further shouldn't be either Racing Point (this is blue as it is a redirect) or Racing Point (Formula One team) not Racing Point Formula One Team as the former would suggest the "Formula One Team" is part of the team's name when in fact it isn't, the teams name is simple Racing Point.[1]SSSB (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

As was mentioned above, this scenario has happened with a fair few teams, the Spyker team being just one of them. The interim period between the old team being bought and the new season started it was consensus that the Spyker MF1 team was the same team as the Spyker F1 team but a separate entity to MF1, so likewise it's considered that Racing Point Force India is the same team as Racing Point, but is separate to Sahara Force India. Secondly, the reason the 'F1 Team' is part of the article name is because it's in the official entry list as part of their name, you can see the same thing is the case with Haas F1 Team, where the 'F1 Team' is actually part of their name and therefor in the article title. Hope this clears things up a bit? AdamComer (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@AdamComer Yes thanks, I would however still argue we should use the name Racing Point for the article per WP:common name but maybe this is a discussion for after we decided if we need a new article. SSSB (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but that's just not true. Spyker MF1 was most certainly not credited as a separate team. Spyker mas merely treated as a sponsor to MF1 in the latter stages of the 2006 season. All results were credited to MF1, as can be seen in that season's official results. This is clearly different to the 2018 situation where Force India and Racing Point Force India were classified separately by the FIA. Hence the Spyker F1 article merely mentions the the 2006 takeover as background but result and activity wise only contains the 2007 activities. Simultaneously the Midland F1 deals with the entire 2007 season. What we have to do with Racing Point F1 at the moment is difficult right now. We simply don't know yet whether the FIA considers Racing Point Force India and Racing Point F1 as one and the same constructor or as different ones. In any case, if it turns out that the FIA credits the latter as a separate one with separate results we reflect that with a new article. As for the name, per WP:PRECISE I suggest Racing Point F1 team. Racing Point is simply an ambiguous name for the lay reader. Moreover I do not believe that one article from the FOM is enough to declare a common name.Tvx1 12:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that Spyker and Racing Point are not exactly the same in terms of the constructor. However I would point out that Frank Williams Racing Cars covers Iso-Marlboro, Williams, and Wolf-Williams cars under a single article. Since "Force India" is now considered to be two separate entities, I have no problem combining nu-Force India with Racing Point. The³5₉ (Talk) 14:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

As for titles, I believe Racing Point is precise enough, there is currently nothing else to really confuse it with, hence no need to disambiguated. Haas F1 has a more precise title because there are several racing teams and companies with the Haas name. The³5₉ (Talk) 14:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with User:The359 in both areas. WP:Precise stats that it must be precise enough to "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." The name "Racing Point" does this as there is not anything else this could refer to. Further the website I cited is not the only one which refers to it simply as racing point. Stats f1 and ESPN do the same. SSSB (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean Racing Point could not refer to anything else? Racing Point is a very vague name. General readers could take this to mean a racing team in any class, a manufacturer or even a circuit. Not every reader is a close follower of motorsport, let alone F1.Tvx1 15:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

But anyone who came across it would know by reading the first paragraph that it was a racing ream in F1 but there is no other article on English Wikipedia which the term "Racing Point" could refer to, so "Racing Point" could and should in my opinion be the name of the article per WP:common name as I have already mentioned. SSSB (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how the whole Midland/Spyker comparison is being made when that was a completely different situation, 'Racing Point' is a new constructor so we should create a seperate article not just re-name the RP Force India one. Plus a consensus hasnt been made so I don't know why the changes have already gone through. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd point out that our current McLaren F1 article is simply McLaren despite several other articles about McLaren businesses. This is far more vague than Racing Point is. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

It's obvious article should be under "short name"/constructor name (Racing Point) and Haas F1 Team should be moved to Haas (Formula One). No need to keep full name of team even there are other not linked teams (enough transparent). Eurohunter (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need, or even discussion, to change the Haas article title. It is correct as is. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

No it isn't because it's exception. Would you move "Scuderia Toro Rosso" to "Red Bull Toro Rosso Honda"? Eurohunter (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Haas is not an exception. There are several racing teams with the Haas name, as well as several companies and people. The name is precise because it needs to be. The³5₉ (Talk) 22:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

"Haas (Formula One)" or "Haas (Formula One team)" is precise as well and follows the rules of disambugation. Eurohunter (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Eurohunter — precision is needed because there have been two unrelated Haas teams in Formula 1: Haas F1 and Haas Lola, a short-lived team from the 1980s. Your proposals, "Haas (Formula One)" and "Haas (Formula One Team)" could apply to both. Plus, there are at least four other Haas teams and companies (some of which are owned by Gene Haas, others of which are not) that have competed in a variety of American motorsports. 1.129.105.195 (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I forgot about this team but it is under "Haas Lola" not "Haas". Looks like "Haas Lola" isn't official name so I would move both articles to "Haas (1985-1986 Formula One team)" and "Haas (2016- Formula One team)". Eurohunter (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but that's just not how Wikipedia works. As for McLaren, that should also be made more precise since simple McLaren can refer to multiple entities.Tvx1 18:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Back to the point

So what do people think - should it be a new article for the new constructor name, or are we going to cover two different constructors in the single article? My view at the moment is that as it is still the same team, then their activities should all be contained in the single article. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

There's no need for a second article, the second Force India team should just redirect where necessary to a sole Racing Point article. - J man708 (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

What people think doesn't matter. What the FIA does is what we care about. If the FIA treats Racing Point as a different constructor to Racing Point India with its own separate records we reflect that and create a new article. If not we keep everything in the same article.Tvx1 18:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Well it does matter. There is no Wiki policy mandating we follow the FIA, the normal Wiki line is we follow the consensus in reliable sources. We need to see what the consensus here is amongst editors to decide how we play it for this team. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

There is. WP:Verify. We have the obligation to present correct information. We cannot go by a personal preference to credit results to a team which weren't credited to them by the sport itself. We reflect what happened in reality.Tvx1 18:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, we can provide equally correct information either way. There is nothing stopping us having one article covering the two different constructor names, and even two different team names, as used by Racing Point UK Limited. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

No we can't. It's one or the other. We can't go list results in article which deals with a team to which those results were not actually credited to.Tvx1 20:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

You miss the point, the article would deal with the team to which the results were credited. Now if the FIA decide that 2018 Racing Point and 2019 Racing Point are two different point accruing entities, then the article could cover both, or we could have a separate article for each. Which way we go is entirely up to consensus here - informed, of course, by what the reliable sources do - and not necessarily what the FIA choose to do themselves. -- DeFacto (talk).

Having one article cover what the FIA consider (and therefore what are) two different teams would create a misleading article as Tvx1 points out, you can't attribute one teams results to another, if the FIA consider "Racing Point Force India" and "Racing Point" two teams then we need an article for each, if the FIA consider "Racing Point Force India" and "Racing Point" the same team but with a different name then the results can be kept in one article and the article can keep its current name. SSSB (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

See, at least SSSB understands my point. What the FIA does is what dictates us. That is how all our team articles are arranged simply because that reflect the sole reality. The FIA is the sole authority in charge of crediting results and our articles have to correctly reflect which entities which results actually belong to.Tvx1 22:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point too, but disagree with it. We can credit the results to the two differently named teams from the same company in one article as we could in two. That depends on the consensus we reach though, and not what the FIA think. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why can't we have an article called "Racing Point teams", or whatever, that covers the results of both? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Because it would be extremly misleading as I said above. SSSB (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Only if the article is poorly named and/or poorly written. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Putting the results of what the FIA consider two different teams in an article suggesting it were one team would be like if a goal was scored by deflection in association football and FIFA gave credit to the player who kicked the ball but we (wikipedia) gave credit to the person it deflected off, it would give a misleading impression as to the success of the player, the same applies to if the FIA and Formula One. If the FIA decide that "Racing Point is a new team wikipedia must reflect that with a new article. My point is that it is the FIA that determine the results of the race and the championship, they also publish the entries, if the FIA states that "Racing Point" is a new team then it is because they are the only authority with the right to decide this and as news sources get the entries list, and all the results from the FIA who publish this, then if the FIA says it is a new team so should the press and therefore so must we to avoid giving misleading results and to satisfy WP:Verify SSSB (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Are the FIA going to pay Racing Point out on the Concorde Agreement for 2018? I can see the argument for a second article if they didn't, but I'm under the impression they will. - J man708 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

SSSB, I understand your point completely, but disagree with it, and think your logic is flawed. Even if the FIA do decide that the renamed team will be treated as a different team, that does not mean that we cannot document them both in the same article. Indeed there would be little point duplicating content (company name, background, history, personnel, base, etc.) as both would be identical. And there is no reason why such an article would be misleading as the results for each of the two names would be documented separately within the article and the distinction clearly explained in the prose and in the lead. Anyway, this is all academic at the moment, let's wait and see how the FIA decide to treat the team rename. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

We have seperate articles for Arrows Grand Prix International and Footwork Arrows and for March Engineering and Leyton House Racing. How is this different? --Falcadore (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Per Racing Point themselves, the team name will change again before the start of the season. I suggest no renaming of articles or creation of new articles until such time that a new name is announced. The³5₉ (Talk) 16:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

However, the article has already been moved. I think it should be moved back to "Racing Point Force India" and no further changes should be made until new information becomes available.Tvx1 17:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I also think that the article should be moved back to "Racing Point Force India" and that we should wait until the official announcement from the team. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Except the team appeared on the provisional entry list as "Racing Point", not "Racing Point Force India". Even if the team have stated their intentions to rename themselves, that does not mean that it will happen, and they are clearly no longer associated with the Force India name. The only reason they kept the name in the second half of 2018 was because of the deal to keep racing. 1.129.108.137 (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Except we don’t know whether the governing body of the sport considers Racin Point Force India and Racing Point to be the same team or different teams.Tvx1 21:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@1.129.108.137 - The team itself is still branded as "Racing Point Force India" on it's official website and social media so it would just look like we are jumping the gun on the subject, The teams personnel have made it public that they won't be called "Racing Point" next year as that name is just a placeholder for the FIA entry list. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

That's the best you have got? Websites are not updated in real time, and it's unreasonable to expect them to be (especially in December). Half a dozen F2 drivers have been announced for 2019, but the F2 website still lists the 2018 drivers.

The team have also made it clear that they won't be called "Racing Point Force India", either, and given that the FIA have published an entry list that contains no mention of Force India, moving the Racing Point article back to "Racing Point Force India" is incorrect, short-sighted, and above all else, stupid. 1.129.108.137 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I suggest keeping the article as is. If changing it cannot satisfy everything, then there is no point in changing it. No name is better than the current one or any other at this given moment. All we have is speculation to go off of. We will have answers in a few months. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@1.129.108.137 - I don't see any reason to change the article title if the team in present time is still called "Racing Point Force India", I'm not saying that's what the team will be called next year but that's what they are called at the present and the article should reflect that. The team itself hasn't made any formal announcement of a name change so we should wait. I do think it should be mentioned on the article that "Racing Point F1 Team" is being used in the 2019 entry list but that it's being used as a placeholder until the actual name is announced per that source from team personnel. By the way little remarks like "That's the best you have got" don't help this discussion it just makes you look incredibly obnoxious and difficult to work with. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change the article title if the team in present time is still called "Racing Point Force India"

Neither do I—but the team is not called "Racing Point Force India" anymore. The entry list names them as "Racing Point". It's not a summary of driver contracts by the FIA. The teams had to submit their entries and part of that is telling the FIA who they are. 1.129.108.159 (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I would point out in the past that the FIA included Honda F1 Team on a pre-season entry list when the team was for sale, knowing full well the team name would change (and become Brawn). However I believe that entry list also made note of that fact. The³5₉ (Talk) 03:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

We should just hold off from changing the article title to "Racing Point" as the placeholder entry doesn't represent the team at present as its still officially "Racing Point Force India" and the team is yet to announce its actual entry name, we should just write a short sentence in the opening paragraph mentioning the temporary entry name and that the actual name is yet to be announced per the most recent source. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

its still officially "Racing Point Force India"

Do you have a source for that? Because this one says something else entirely:

"However in the official 2019 F1 entry list that was published by the FIA on Friday night, it was confirmed the Silverstone-based squad would be fully rebranded."

I find it very difficult to believe that one of the most reliable publications out there would either misread an entry list or miss a key piece of information like that. 1.129.108.220 (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Except, it has actually been moved to just that name shortly after this discussion began without a consensus existing to do so. I still feel that should be reverted. And in the same vain as what The359 was telling, an early 2005 entry list listed Jaguar which would ultimately be replaced by an entirely new constructor called Red Bull Racing.Tvx1 15:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I just don't think we should rush into changing/moving things before we have all the information. ([2] This source tells us that "Racing Point" is just a place holder on the provisional entry list.) Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yet that rush is exactly what happened shortly after this discussion started and what should be reverted.Tvx1 14:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who rushed into this I literally just asked a question which started this discussion and that's it. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn’t claim you moved. I just a rushed move happened and that it should be reverted.Tvx1 18:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Tvx1 that the name change should be reverted. But our top priority should be to make the page look presentable because right now it is a mess. The name mentioned in the title is different to the one in the info box. There are more problems but i will leave it there for now. That is why I agree with Tvx1 that we should change the article back as it would be less work than to fix said article only to change it back should the need arise. Meanwhile we would include a template in "racing point force india" directing to this discussion and the "racing point" will simply have to be a red wikilink whilst we contine this discussion or a new article which can later be deleted if it is found to be redundant (there's only a few sentences to put anyway). This way we can continue this discussion in the background with a neat racing point force india article as opposed it being a mess or us changing everything and including a section on a name change which are edits which we may have to end up reverting. This is a temporary solution which I feel we should impose for the good of the reader and so we don't waste time ed8ting things which may be changed back depending on the outc9me of this discussion. SSSB (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1 - Sorry about that I thought you was accusing me of being the one who's rushing things, for now I think the article should be reverted back to "Racing Point Force India". Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This source tells us that "Racing Point" is just a place holder on the provisional entry list.

It also tells use that the team no longer has any association with Force India. Moving the article back to "Racing Point Force India" is therefore entirely inappropriate. While the team have stated their intention to change their name, that does not mean that it will happen. You will recall that HRT originally wanted to be known as "Hispania Racing Team", but the FIA did not recognise "Hispania" as a word and they had to settle for HRT.

The provisional entry list may well be provisional, but it is nevertheless an entry list produced by the FIA. In the eyes of the FIA, the team is now Racing Point, not Racing Point Force India. 1.129.108.24 (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

If you are willing to tidy up the article that is fine, but I wouldn't want to waste time doing this if it may need to be reverted pending the result of this discussion. This is why I suggested a temporary revert whilst we discuss this. Then the article name can be changed or a new article created after a consensus has been reached. SSSB (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@1.129.108.24 - "It also tells use that the team no longer has any association with Force India." The sources say that they won't be known as "Force India" in 2019 nobody is arguing that fact, but the team itself is still under the "Racing Point Force India" name at this present date and have not announced anything themselves on being known as just "Racing Point" we're still in 2018 and we're not in a rush so just wait for things to be announced. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

the team itself is still under the "Racing Point Force India" name at this present date

I asked you to provide evidence of this, which you still have not done. 1.129.111.222 (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The teams website and social media is a huge indicator and don't bother with that poor site updating excuse because it doesn't hold any weight as sites these days can be easily updated. May I ask why you're in such a rush to change things without a overall consensus? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The teams website and social media is a huge indicator

Both of those amount to self-published sources.

don't bother with that poor site updating excuse because it doesn't hold any weight as sites these days can be easily updated

Oh, I won't. I'm not the one building a flimsy argument that ignores a reliable source.

May I ask why you're in such a rush to change things without a overall consensus?

Why are you so eager to ignore reliable sources? 1.129.111.185 (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:SELFPUB, self-published sources are good for information solely about themselves. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Attacking each other isn't going to help us forward in any way. Pleas just refrain from that. Prisonermonkeys, as you should be full well aware know by now, we're not certain that Racing Point Force India and Racing Point are considered to be the same competitor. Therefore, listing the 2018 results in an article on a prospective new 2019 competitor using a provisional name is simply misleading and probably outright incorrect.Tvx1 14:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@1.129.108.24 - I don't see how you can claim that I'm ignoring sources when I openly acknowledged them in previous posts, I honestly don't want to get into a argument with you so I will just drop it. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how you can claim that I'm ignoring sources when I openly acknowledged them in previous posts

Because a source from the FIA, which we recognise as the primary authority on this subject, clearly states that the team is currently known as Racing Point and no longer has any connection to Force India. You, however, are advocating for a name that claims that relationship with Force India is alive and well. 1.129.111.247 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The entry list is only "provisional" meaning that things might change before the start of the season, top personnel of the team have stated in sources that "Racing Point" doesn't reflect the team currently as its just a placeholder on the entry list until the actual new name is announced so until then it would be better if the article was titled under the the teams current name (which is still in use on the teams website and social media) of "Racing Point Force India". Have it mentioned in the article but it doesn't facilitate a name change just yet as the name used in the entry list is temporary. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The entry list is only "provisional" meaning that things might change before the start of the season

And that's your problem—you have no way of knowing if they will change. Those "top personnel" have said that they intend to change, but that does not guarantee that it will happen. 1.129.111.101 (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, Prisonermonkeys, the much bigger problem is that we don’t know whether the 2018 competitor and the 2019 competitor are one and the same. The only thing we can demonstrate with reliable sources is who the 2018 results belong to. That’s why we shouldn’t be mixing up 2018 and 2019 in one article until the situation becomes more clear.Tvx1 13:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Like I said before I'm dropping this now because it's clearly not getting us anywhere its just become bickering and I'm with Tvx1 on this issue. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The article title needs to be reverted back (I'm unable to do it). Speedy Question Mark (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Once you prove that the team is still known as Force India in the eyes if the FIA. 1.129.107.81 (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Quite on the contrary, you are the one who needs to prove that the FIA considers Racing Point Force India and Racing Point are the same entity. As long as that hasn't been demonstrated we cannot keep the 2018 and 2019 records in one and the same article.Tvx1 14:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"Formula One" or "Formula 1"

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, per the discussion below–it is clear that the discussion will not result in consensus to move the pages to the proposed titles at this time. Dekimasuよ! 18:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

---

• Formula One → Formula 1
• 2018 Formula One World Championship → 2018 Formula 1 World Championship
• 2019 Formula One World Championship → 2019 Formula 1 World Championship

PM here,

I've been looking over the various sources that we use in articles and once again I find myself wondering whether "Formula One" or "Formula 1" is the best title to use. The only source I can find that consistently uses "Formula One" is the FIA website, for things such as entry lists and official documentation. While FIA sources are important because they're generally definitive, WP:COMMONNAME argues that article titles should use the name most commonly presented in third-party sources. Autosport uses "Formula 1", as does Speedcafe and formula1.com, three of the major sources that we use. Looking at the reference list for the 2018 championship article (currently semi-protected, so I cannot get the URLs), motorsport.com, Sky Sports, the BBC, ESPN and Autoweek all use "Formula 1". It's common to every major source that we use. In addition—and this is more of a supplementary point—the support "formula" categories all use numbers rather than words: Formula 2, Formula 3 and Formula 4. So I think "Formula 1" is much more representative for the championship than "Formula 1.129.105.195 (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Hhkohh (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi PM. 1) if you still can't remember your password, why don't you create a new named account rather than the continuously changing IP addresses that your ISP gives you? That way your contribution history will become accessible again (and we'll be able to ping you, etc. again ;-) ). 2) I agree that we should use the terminology most prevalent in the reliable sources, and not necessarily that of the sport's governing body. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I support PM's position. "Formula One" is not a common name and it breaks similarity with other Formula categories. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't have a strong opinion on this. Wouldn't even say the FIA is "definitive". They do the rules, but everything to do with marketing (and therefore naming) is done through Formula One Management, who, as PM pointed out, use "Formula 1" (except in their own name ironically). Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, they're not traditional sources, but advertisers—such as broadcasters—use "Formula 1". And when you turn the television on to watch a Grand Prix session, "Formula 1" is the name used. 1.129.108.4 (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@DeFacto, @Corvus tristis, @Zwerg Nase — I think it's worth moving championship articles and Formula One to new titles that use the 1. Identifying uses of the "One" in prose will probably be harder. The first thing we would have to do is to figure out if there was ever a time when "One" was used, and if so, when it changed to "1". 1.129.108.220 (talk) 09:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest waiting at least a week before moving any pages, to make sure there is consensus for the change. Assuming that by "championship articles", you mean the season summary articles, I would also point out that the last time season article titles were discussed (in August/September 2017), the consensus was for them to be called "YYYY Formula One World Championship", not "YYYY Formula 1 World Championship". You will need to demonstrate that there is consensus for this to be changed. DH85868993 (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with DH85868993. Wait until this discussion goes quiet, and then get a formal close. That way any declared consensus will be better documented and more likely to be respected. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

True, but there were multiple issues discussed at the time. The reason I'm proposing "1" instead of "One" now is because I felt it wasn't really discussed at length the way the other issues were. I'm simply outlining the extent of the usage of "One" so that uninvolved editors can get involved. 1.129.108.220 (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it was discussed at length much more recently (in march 2018) resulting in a clear consensus in favor of the usage of "one". Tvx1 14:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Tvx1. I thought the topic had been discussed more recently than September 2017, but my quick search through the WT:F1 archive didn't pick up the March 2018 discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes I thought this topic sounded familiar. I don't see a compelling new argument to change the consensus from last time. QueenCake (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

As we know, consensus can change though. The policy at WP:TITLE tells us "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles." If we cannot agree which is most prevalent in the reliable sources, then we should use those listed principles to choose between "1" or "One". As "1" or "One" does not affect how precisely it identifies the subject, how natural it is or how distinguishable or recognisable it is, then it's down to shortness and resemblance to similar article titles. "1" is certainly the shorter, and looking at other Formula articles it seems numbers are more prevalent than words. So I would still say it should be "1". -- DeFacto (talk). 18:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

However, you yourself have provided clear evidence in the linked discussion that “one” is clearly most prevalent.Tvx1 19:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

But was it accepted as compelling then and would it be accepted as compelling here, now? Here I highlighted an alternative and objective process that could be used if we can't agree on what the most prevalent name in the reliable sources is. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::Not hugely fussed one way or the other, there are probably 1,000 reasons to change and 999 not to. It probably comes down to personal choice, given they are used interchangeably. With the status quo having prevailed since at least July 2002 when the Formula 1 redirect was established, am leaning to leaving as it as "One". Fecotank (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

That redirect was made in the early days of Wikipedia. The F1 project grew very quickly, and a lot of decisions were made very quickly that were not necessarily accurate. I would not read too much into it. 1.129.108.158 (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, why is @DeFacto expected to maintain a consistent position? If we're all locked into a position, we'll never get anything done because nobody would be able to persuade anyone of anything.

Secondly, the evidence you cite was an analysis of Google search results for variations of a specific phrase: "2018 Formula One World Championship". I'm talking about the concept of Formula 1 as a whole. 1.129.108.158 (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

But I am being consistent. Now, as before, and as I said above, I agree that we should use the terminology most prevalent in the reliable sources. Whether that be "1" or "One". The problem is identify which is the most prevalent. If we can't agree on that, the fallback is to use the principles from WP:TITLE that I listed above. This shouldn't be about personal preference, it should be based on Wiki policies and guidelines and as objective as possible. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@DeFacto — I know you're being consistent. It just felt like your previous comments on the subject were being presented as "well, you said this last time, but now you're saying that" as if it invalidated your position.

I also think it's worth considering that the sport consistently chooses to represent itself as "Formula 1". If we cannot distinguish between "1" and "One" based on sources (although I think we can, since "1" is more frequently used as far as I can tell), we should consider what the sport says its name is. "Formula 1" is recognisable because the subject of the article is concrete rather than abstract. The reader can turn the television on and see "Formula 1" writ large on the screen. 1.129.108.72 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

PM, can you please clarify the full extent of proposed changes? From reading the above, my impression is that the proposal involves (in the fullness of time) replacing "Formula One" with "Formula 1" pretty much throughout English Wikipedia (except obviously, in direct quotes, or where the words "Formula One" are part of an official name, e.g. we wouldn't change Formula One Group to Formula 1 Group, etc). For example, does it include:

• changing "Formula One" to "Formula 1" in all article titles (except for official names, as described above)?
• changing "Formula One" to "Formula 1" in all category names?
• changing "Formula One" to "Formula 1" in all template names?
• changing "Formula One" to "Formula 1" in all template text?
• changing "Formula One" to "Formula 1" in all prose (except for direct quotes, official names, etc)?
• moving Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One to Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula 1?

Since the proposal potentially affects thousands of articles, I think it's important that everyone understands exactly what is being discussed. DH85868993 (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@DH85868993 — I would start with article titles. I think that is the most visible way of representing the sport. Categories and templates would be on a case-by-case basis; of the two, templates would probably be more important. It might be worth investigating the possibility of setting up a bot to move them, but I think it will involve much less work than I am anticipating. Prose would be nice, but next to impossible and I think there are bigger concerns (for example, George Russell's article reads like a thriller novel in places). The style is also inconsistent across articles. I don't really see the need to move the WikiProject because it's more of a behind-the-scenes part of Wikipedia. 1.129.111.247 (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the clarification. DH85868993 (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Bonus question for extra marks: If Formula One was moved to Formula 1, would you also update all occurrences of "Formula One" in that article to "Formula 1", for consistency with the article title? (And likewise for other moved articles, e.g. if 2018 Formula One World Championship was moved to 2018 Formula 1 World Championship, would you update the text to say "The 2018 Formula 1 Championship was ... the 69th running of the Formula 1 World Championship"?) DH85868993 (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@DH85868993 — ideally, yes, and there are some articles like Formula One where it has to happen. But I feel there is more scope to use the "1" and the "One" interchangably in prose than there is to use them interchangably in article titles. 1.129.111.101 (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I have added tags to Formula One, 2018 Formula One World Championship and 2019 Formula One World Championship to advise readers of the proposed move. (I remember that last time the season summary articles were moved, at least one editor complained that they had been totally unaware of the proposed move until after it occurred). I selected these three articles as the "highest profile" affected articles , but I have no objection if others want add tags to other articles. DH85868993 (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose move - There's no compelling reason for such a massive upheaval that flies in the face of years of stability, especially since redirects can handle any confusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think this would just provoke a colossal amount of work for no benefit. It doesn't improve the readability at the articles in any way. I haven't seen any reader complain about the use of "one" on any "formula one" talk page. Moreover, the evidence from the previous discussion demonstrates a massively higher usage of "one" than "1". I just don't see the compelling reason to change something that ultimately makes little, if any, difference.Tvx1 16:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment DH85868993, the whole tagging of the articles was mess. The tags were added by a bot, not you as you claim, and refer to the talk page of Formula One instead of here. On that talk page there are then two sections on the matter. I have tried to clean it up somewhat.Tvx1 16:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, I didn't personally add the tags, but I added the {{requested move}} template, which resulted in the tags being added. Regarding the tags referring to Talk:Formula One, I was just following the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves which state that the template should be placed on the talk page on one of the affected articles. Thank you and Hhkohh for tidying up. DH85868993 (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Mild oppose Not a strong view against, but a practical reason: possible confusion between 1 and I. Why ask for trouble? One isn't so wrong. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. No compelling reason to change from one to the other and undertake a vast amount of work to accomplish nothing. Keep the status quo. Incidentally, had Formula 1 been the original format, I would have supported keeping that status quo, but it isn't, so I don't... QueenCake (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for most of the reasons already given, change for the sake of change with no material benefit. Fecotank (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Despite what the nominator says, some sources use the current tile. Like The Guardian, which is used as a reference in the article. Calidum 07:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • So do ESPN and the BBC. Calidum 07:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Calidum: I think the point though is, per WP:COMMONNAME, which way is more prevalent across all the reliable sources available. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

That information can already be found in the previous discussion from March in linked to. The usage of "one" is vastly superior to the usage of "1". The former is used roughly twice as much.Tvx1 15:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No, that wasn't looking at whether "Formula One" or "Formula 1" was more common, it was looking at whether "2018 Formula One World Championship", "2018 Formula 1 World Championship", "2018 FIA Formula One World Championship" or "2018 FIA Formula 1 World Championship" was more common for the name of the season article. And its validity wasn't generally agreed anyway. There have been a whole lot more sources created since then too, and there seems to be a feeling that the trend is moving in favour of "Formula 1". -- DeFacto (talk). 16:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

And the move of season articles is exactly what is being discussed here. So that general general unbiased search which resulted in over 50 000 results for the title combinations with "one" against only half of that for "1" is very relevant and due to the massive difference very meaningful. Only one user, who quite strongly objected to the removal of "FIA", called in question and the flaw in their doubt was already pointed out back then.Tvx1 14:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Modifying that search to match this discussion we get:

Search string	Count for "All"	Count for "News"
"Formula One"	62,000,000	8,750,000
"Formula 1"	172,000,000	67,200,000

-- DeFacto (talk). 16:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see how anyone can argue with those numbers. Especially since the results of a similar carried weight last time. 1.129.105.214 (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment:, I'm not sure we have agreed yet which ("One" or "1") is used most often in the reliable sources. Without knowing that it's hard to justify a policy-based reason for a name change. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment: that's why we should use WP:TITLE as a guide. 1.129.107.215 (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. "1" is probably more prevalent than "One," but not definitively so, and I don't see that we gain anything by putting forth a significant amount of effort to change it. Wicka wicka (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: @Wicka wicka — that's where WP:TITLE comes in; as @DeFacto pointed out, the policy states "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles." The use of "1" arguably fits this better. 1.129.107.215 (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Reply That's just your personal opinion, and no one seems to agree with it. In reality, "one" and "1" are just as recognizable.Tvx1 14:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Well let's look at them one at a time: "it is short" - there's not much between them there but "1" is undeniably shorter, "natural" - again a close call, "distinguishable" - nothing in it, "recognizable" - both very similar, "resembles titles for similar articles" - ah we break the deadlock with this one, similar articles for other formulas use numbers. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
        • I do think it's more recogniseable, especially if we look beyond the traditional sources. The sport itself uses the "1" as do advertising and television guides. "Formula 1" is itself a trademark; I believe Hotel Formule 1 had to change their name to avoid infringing on it. 1.129.105.214 (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: "it's too much work" is a pretty lousy excuse, especially given that "1" fits better under WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TITLE. You cannot just ignore policy because it's inconvenient. 1.129.107.215 (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • • Reply The argument is not "it's too much work", the argument is "it's a lot of work for all but no gain". "One" or "1" does not make any difference to the lay reader. It's just a difference of style.Tvx1 14:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: We can and should ignore policy when it requires a large amount of effort in exchange for literally zero gain. I would strongly suggest that you attempt to justify this change without using wiki policy as a crutch. It's not possible. And disregarding that point - if anything, we've only seen people show that "One" is the more prevalent spelling. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: which they have only achieved by selectively presenting articles and complaining that the change sounds too much like hard work. The only sources cited were Tvx1 citing a previous discussion where a different term was used and Calidum presenting sources that used the digit and word interchangably. As for the "literally zero gain" the proposed changes would bring articles in line with how the sport represents itself and would be a better fit to the wider context of open-wheel racing on Wikipedia. 1.129.107.140 (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Quite on the contrary, you're the one selectively presenting sources using "1". The previous discussion contained a general unbiased search which resulted in over 50 000 results for the title combinations with "one" against only half of that for "1". That difference is more than massive enough to be meaningful. I don't know how a commonname can be much clearer than that.Tvx1 14:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly pointed out, WP:TITLE says the following:

"Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles."

Given that we have multiple sources that vary between the digit and the word, there are clearly multiple possibilities. We must thus use the name that is short, natural, distinguishable and recogniseable.

• 
• 
• 

These are the images that the sport has used for over thirty years. The 1 is clearly the shortest, most natural, most distinguishable and most recogniseable name. Furthermore, numbers are used in FIA Formula 2 Championship, FIA Formula 3 Championship and every single Formula 4 championship, which means that the use of the 1 "resembles titles for similar articles". Can anyone refute this? Or are you just going to ignore one of Wikipedia's most important policies because it's too hard? 1.129.107.81 (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

From those, it looks like we should be considering "F1" as an alternative too. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@DeFacto — but in that case it's not clear what the "F" means. 1.129.107.81 (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The policy says "short" not "shortest". Even with "one" it is short since the official name would include "FIA" as well. Secondly even with "one" it is easily distinguishable and recognizable. There is absolutely no major problem with the current titles.Tvx1 14:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose There is only one Formula One championship, as opposed to F2 and F3 where there are European championships and such. Should a new Formula One championship come about, I would support. Admanny (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment: @Admanny: I'm afraid that's not correct. It might have been thirty years ago, but there is no longer a European Formula 3 or Formula 3 Euroseries either; just one Formula 3 championship. 1.129.107.81 (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • At least an alternate championship existed. Has there been an alternate F1 championship? If the answer is no, I am opposing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Admanny (talk • contribs) 22:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, British Formula One Championship. Even if it used a different set of rules, it still called itself a Formula 1 championship. 1.129.105.74 (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Sure, there used to be a British Formula One Championship and a South African Formula One Championship.Tvx1 00:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

Perhaps the "all or nothing" approach is the wrong way to go about this. As @DH85868993 pointed out, the change potentially affects article titles, templates, categories and prose. Maybe we should be evaluating the individual changes. 1.129.107.215 (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No, whatever consensus is reached should apply across the board. Selectively applying it is not the answer. This appears to be a last throw of the dice, given that it is fairly clear there is little support for the proposed change. Fecotank (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"This appears to be a last throw of the dice"

And your comments appear to be little more than an attempt to shut down a proposal that you don't like. If people agree to change the name in some situations, why shouldn't that consensus be observed? 1.129.107.81 (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fecotank: this is now a formal move discussion, and only applies to the titles (though not necessarily any of the content) of the three articles mentioned in the listing: Formula One, 2018 Formula One season and 2019 Formula One season. If the consensus is to rename, then, of course, changes might percolate through into the prose, etc. and trigger move discussions for other articles, templates, etc. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@DeFacto, @Fecotank — I'm open to the idea that context might give us some leeway in how we approach things. Given the conventions of WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME, I think we have to rename articles. But does that mean we have to do it for, say, categories? Their function is really to sort articles, so arguably they're less important than article titles. If we really wanted to change them in every article, we could set up a bot. Likewise, there is no uniform style for prose in articles—sometimes "1" is used and other times "One" is used. In some articles it's inconsistent within the prose; Sergey Sirotkin uses "tenth" and "13th". Do we want a uniform style or is there scope for variation? If we just consider the "all or nothing" approach, we have no opportunity to even consider these. 1.129.107.81 (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

We have a style guide on the use of numbers. This isn't applicable to the main thrust of the topic because Formula One is a name. But for the second point, both tenth or 10th are acceptable per the MOS, but the choice should be consistent within one article. QueenCake (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

There already is a formal move discussion underway regarding article titles, so I really don't understand the purpose of this side-track.Tvx1 14:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Because the proposed changes do not just affect article titles. They could affect prose, categories and templates, to name a few. Up until now, people have taken an "all or nothing" approach—that if we change article titles, then we have to change the prose, categories and templates, too. That may be a deterrant to some people who would otherwise agree with some changes. So I am wondering if there is an appetite to change just the titles, or change the titles and templates while leaving the categories and prose alone, or any one of half a dozen combinations. 1.129.105.74 (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

It seems a bit premature to close this discussion given that some people never got the chance to respond to developing arguments, such as the count of the Google search results. 1.129.104.7 (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As above, it is clear that the current discussion will not result in consensus to move the pages. Those who already expressed views are not required to return to agree to or rebut each subsequent point, and the discussion was open for more than ten days. If you believe the close to be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI, please feel free to raise the issue at Wikipedia:Move review. However, it seems evident that we would make more progress on improving the encyclopedia by focusing on other areas for a while. Dekimasuよ! 21:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

They may not be required to return, but when you close a discussion after just three days, it hardly gives people the chance to respond, especially as new lines of argument open up. 1.129.104.218 (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

DNS or Ret

In Simtek Verstappen was Ret and in Simtek S951 was DNS was 1995 Monaco Grand Prix. --Adriel 00 (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Project consensus is that this result should be recorded as "DNS". I've updated the Simtek article accordingly. Thanks for pointing out the error. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I am positively surprised by the quality of the 1995 Monaco Grand Prix article though. I wonder why nobody ever tried to bring that to GA status. Might look into that in the future... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

List of Formula One driver numbers

Whilst looking at List of Formula One driver numbers I noticed that someone has placed in the 2019 numbers for the new drivers (88 for Kubica etc.) Do we think this is a good idea considering they are yet to race with these numbers, 88 hasn't been used by Kubica yet and 63 hasn't been used full stop. Personally I don't think the numbers should be included until after they have actually raced under the number and therefore the 2019 numbers should be removed (including the fact that it says the number 44 (for example) was last used in 2019, despite 2019 not even having started yet.) But what do you guys think. SSSB (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems right to remove them. --Adriel 00 (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Those new number have officially been assigned to them by the FIA and appear on the latest entry list. I can see the problem with listing them. However, listing them as "used in 2019" is not correct at this time.Tvx1 21:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Jordan Grand Prix results

Is "Complete International Formula 3000 results" section correct in Jordan Grand Prix results? Would not it be better to put it in the main article, by the name "Grand Prix"? Thanks. --Adriel 00 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry

I have some pretty serious issues with the Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry article as I think the entire article flirts dangerously close to breaking WP:NPOV. I would have serious reservations about using any source from the British media regarding Hamilton because they are, in my view, completely biased. Seriously, compare the coverage Hamilton—or any British driver for that matter—gets in the British press to the coverage he gets from the international press and there is a noticeable difference, such as Andrew Benson suggesting Hamilton would be justified in crashing into Rosberg to win a title and then crucifying Vettel for actually deliberately hitting Hamilton.

Any British-based coverage of a British driver should be critically reviewed. 1.129.109.139 (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It depends on whether we are talking about facts or opinions in the article. Facts should be okay from British (assuming they pass the WP:RS test) sources. Opinion, on the other hand, needs to be carefully attributed as whose opinion it is, and controversial opinions might need to be balanced with opinions from other sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@DeFacto — in theory, yes, but not always in practice. For example, Hamilton triggered controversy this week when he called his hometown a slum. The only coverage on Autosport was an opinion piece defending him; if Autosport was your only source and you don't pay for premium coverage, you would not even know it happened. By not reporting it, they are shaping perception of him.

Or look at George Russell. He took a lot of criticism for his complaint about Artem Markelov's move at Monza (Markelov saw him coming and backed off to let him pass into Parabolica, then used DRS down the main straight), but it went unreported in the British press. Or Dan Ticktum. He is celebrated as the Next British Hope by commentators who condemned Vettel for driving into Hamilton in Azerbaijan—commentators who make no mention of Ticktum ignoring a safety car to deliberately crash into Ricky Collard.

The point is that what isn't mentioned by sources is just as important as what is. And given the markedly different coverage of British drivers in general (and Hamilton in particular) between the British press and the international press, I think serious questions have to be asked because the Btitish press quite clearly favour Hamilton and do articles like his so-called "rivalry" with Rosberg are questionable because the sources don't even try to be neutral. 1.144.108.226 (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure bias, and even prejudices exist in the press, but it works both ways. You could equally have argued that we should avoid the non-British press as they are biased against Hamilton (perhaps your preference to argue the other way reflects your own bias?). The trick is to find the balance and to correctly attribute opinion as opinion (such as the one you mentioned about Hamilton's remark) to allow readers to judge for themselves. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure each country's media endlessly supports their own drivers. I've just never seen it to the extent that the British media do it. When Autosport's only coverage of Hamilton's "slum" comments is an impassioned op-ed whereas the Australian media report it as news, something is afoot. If you think I'm being specious, look at the British coverage of Hamilton's "slum" comment compared to the coverage of Jeremy Corbyn calling Theresa May a "stupid woman".

The point I am trying to make is that articles rely on balanced sources to maintain neutrality—but sources are becoming less balanced. I sometimes wonder what would happen if Hamilton was caught smothering puppies; a part of me suspects that the British media (and not just The Daily Mail) would run the headline THE PUPPIES HAD IT COMING. How many times have we had to undo edits based on Autosport headlines that apparently confirm something like a driver move, but the body of the article makes it clear they've got nothing? 1.144.108.46 (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

All opinion pieces are exactly that - opinion, and that some do not agree with your bias does not mean that they are wrong. Also, editorial integrity about what is factual news and what is using out-of-context quotes for sensationalising or scandalising effect is one of the things that differentiates between reliable and non-reliable sources.

And no, articles do not (and indeed cannot) rely on balanced sources for opinions, they must rely on editors striking an NPOV balance (taking account of due weight) between the views and opinions made across the breadth of reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with @DeFacto, while some British sources may provide more bias towards Hamilton in some scenarios, some non-British sources may also add some negative bias in the way they report on the driver, and so the role falls upon editors to strike a NPOV balance from using a range of these sources. -- Formulaonewiki (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

When reporting on the contest between a British driver and a German (eg Hamilton and Vettel), I would be more inclined to pick an international source that is neither British or German. Look at the way the start line accident in Singapore last year was reported: Sky immediately blamed Vettel for the accident, even though Vettel would somehow have to be able to have a pair of eyes in the back of his head that could see Verstappen coming through Räikkönen's car. This isn't a recent phenomenon, and I have to admit that I get quite frustrated watching the races when I see one thing happening, but am told something else by journalists with an agenda. It's starting to infect the junior categories and it's getting to the point where I don't trust the British media when the subject is a British driver. Look at Autosport's Top 50 Drivers of 2018—I guarantee you that Hamilton is #1 even though the likes of Sébastien Ogier and Scott McLaughlin had to fight much harder for their titles. 1.144.111.7 (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You do know Formula One cars have mirrors right? As I've already said, I agree that there is bias, however, we should include a range of sources to achieve NPOV, not just dismiss all British sources for an 'international source' as you described, and there are definitely better examples of bias than Singapore. NPOV is still achievable without boycotting all British media because you personally "don't trust" them. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Formulaonewiki, and like I have said, opinion needs to be fully attributed and balanced with the views of other reliable sources - and not suppressed because of the country of origin of the media that carried it. All opinion is biased, we cannot just pick or eliminate sources because of their particular bias as that completely conflicts with [[WP:NPOV:Wiki policy]]. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

IP 1.144.111.7, you are free to choose to watch, listen to or read just the media that more closely matches your particular bias if you like, but Wikipedia is committed to providing a duly-weighted balance, so editors are obliged to take all opinions into account. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@DeFacto — we already rely heavily on Autosport as a source ("Autosport or it didn't happen" is an attitude easily found amidst other online communities). Maybe too heavily. How many times have we seen them run a story like this where the title suggests a significant piece of news, but the body of the article reveals that nothing has been announced? They have a bad habit of using phrasing like "Autosport understands ..." to justify publishing a story in advance of an announcement. Between that and their failure to report on criticisms and controversies related to British drivers, we might need to reconsider just how extensively we use Autosport as a source. 1.144.111.130 (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

IP 1.144.111.130, why? Are you continually finding factual inaccuracies in their output? I think what you are saying is, not that the source is unreliable, but that that some Wiki editors are misusing it and stating opinion or speculation as if it were fact. It's fine to say (depending on the context in an article) that "Autosport are reporting that an announcement that X will drive for Y is expected next week"_Autosport, but certainly not to say that "X will drive for Y"_(Autosport). -- DeFacto (talk). 09:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I do agree with your sentiment about the concern about bias from some sources creeping into the article and for these reasons, I'd appreciate some help in rewriting parts of the article with the use of a wider range of sources to achieve more balance and less POV. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I placed a courtesy notice regarding this discussion on Talk:Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry#WT:F1 discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Given that this article was deleted by unanimous agreement at AFD before, I have nominated it again.Tvx1 14:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of the NPOV issue I'm talking about:

"Some journalists [weasel words] have contrasted the drivers' upbringings. [why is this important?] Rosberg, an only child, was born in Germany but brought up in Monaco and was the son of the wealthy former Formula One world champion, Keke Rosberg, [how did this make Rosberg a better driver?] whereas Hamilton was born on a council estate in Stevenage, and his father had to work multiple jobs to fund his son's junior racing. [so what?] Formula One pundit and commentator Will Buxton [the start of the paragraph mentions "some journalists", implying many, but this only offers one journalist's view] compared the character and driving styles of the pair, [how is he objectively measuring this?] labelling Hamilton as the faster driver with more natural ability [can this be quantified and how does it manifest on-track?] while labelling Rosberg, while not as quick, as the more intelligent driver. [can this be quantified and how does it manifest on-track?]"

The entire purpose of this paragraph appears to be to set up a narrative of Rosberg being the privileged son of a former champion and Hamilton the plucky Brit who fought tooth and nail to rise above his station in life. Sound familiar? It's the basic plot of Rush.

How Hamilton and Rosberg's respective upbringings shaped their driving styles and rivalry is not discussed. While it is sourced, the source is a single opinion piece that offers no verifiable way of evaluating the two. Given that the importance of their upbringings is never established, the paragraph appears to serve no purpose other than to get the reader to support Hamilton because his personal history is far more sympathetic than Rosberg's. 1.144.111.130 (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

So IP 1.144.111.130, show us, from reliable sources, an equal weight of equally notable commentators that agree with your take on this, and you have a point. Otherwise, per WP:NPOV, the article does reflect the balance of reliable and notable opinion. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I cannot find any reliable sources that measure the impact of Hamilton and Rosberg's upbringings on their performances on the track. Nor can I find any sources that show their upbringings were a source of tension between them, thus fuelling their rivalry. Thus, I cannot establish the relevance of the paragraph to the article and so could reasonably cut it from the article without negatively affecting it. It does not matter if it is well-sourced and reflects the balance of reliable and notable opinion if it fails in its premise that their upbringings directly shaped their performance. 1.144.111.141 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

It adds context, and is reliably sourced, though, perhaps, not adequately attributed, and should probably be in the body, rather than in the lead which should summarise the article rather than have content not explored in the rest of the article.

But we are moving off-topic here, which was exploring whether British sources were all unreliable wrt this topic, which I think we've shown not to be the case. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hunt-Lauda rivalry

Hunt-Lauda rivalry has been nominated for deletion. Any comments are welcome on the discussion page.Tvx1 14:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)