Talk:Formula One

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2021 and 23 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Natjman11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Content dispute: where teams are based

I'm quite angry with Mark83 and his baseless accusations, but I'll try to keep focus on his edits.

First. The main point of my removal is that neither source given actually mentions Haas' UK base, the only one that discusses Haas (a bad one) only says they're based in America. We're supposed to write articles based on reliable published sources, not what we feel is mostly right/correct. "More right than wrong" is not an excuse, the texts we add should at least try to reflect what sources actually say. Morrover, it's not even true as currently written...

Second. I'll admit the secondary arguments on Red Bull and Alpine are weaker and can be handwaved as "well, that's irrelevant (even if true) and can't be proven through secondary RS, bruh". However, I'll argue that most news articles (even from sources considered RS) discussing the so-called "Motorsport Valley" are not-NPOV and rarely try to depict a complete picture on the entities beyond a British perspective.

Third. The original text was really there to prove how Ferrari is more authentic and special and most of the other teams are just fake English mercenary placeholders (which may be true, but not really NPOV). The sources do not support the text as written, and were hastily added after its addition was reverted a couple of times. The original text contained gems like conflating team and constructor or saying Ferrari are the only one "which produces road cars and Formula 1 cars at the same site, which is also the company Headquarters" I tried to fix it to be at least factually correct even if not sticking with the supposed "sources", but I gave up...

I'm open to discuss ways to highlight the importance of the British industry on F1. But at least let's try to stick to sources... or at least to the truth.

If this thread has no meaningful responses after a week, other that appealing to a majority "consensus" (consensus≠majority here...), I'll remove the text again. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I am quick to apologise when I've done something wrong. In this case I have no idea why you are getting so "quite angry" about this edit summary of mine:

"It's more correct than it's not. Your edit summary is full of opinion/original research. Since we've so far got a 2:1 opinion for the status quo, so let's take this to the talk page to agree the way forward".

This referred to your edit summary of

" thinking more on it, removing the para completely, as it's a can of worms. The only RS source used is really old, and doesn't include Haas (which is very debatable to call UK-based), and doesn't really explains Red Bull (engine supplied from Sakura and synergies with an Italian team) and Alpine (many operations of the team, including some marketing and management activities, are really based in Boulogne-Billancourt and Viry, even if chassis and legal base is in Enston"

It excludes Haas due to age of the source, agreed. But Red Bull is demonstrably a UK-centred team (but not by flag of course). Did McLaren's foreign engines make them non-British (1 of countless examples)? And do Aston Martin's synergies with Mercedes change their nationality? And Apline is still Enstone-focused and based (no argument that the French operations are also significant however). Good luck finding a RS for otherwise. Overall the paragraph definitely needs to be updated, I totally agree. I just disagree with your heavy-handed approach to removing it altogether. Mark83 (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Mark83, I'm keeping what I said off-topic on all over, I see no reason to change my views. As for the on-topic discussion, the content was already accepted in a poor state two times: the first with glaring fallacies and the second admittedly in better form, but still off on the content side (even if you handwave the Red Bull/Alpine thing, which arguably you can do, it's still off...) and with poor sourcing. Content should be reasonably accurate and sourced as soon as it's in the article. But let's run on the premise I was too heavy-handed when insisting on straight removing it (although I tried to improve it, albeit without much success...), and the paragraph at its core has indeed information worthy of Wikipedia. Fair enough, that sounds better a premise than non-arguments and appeals to majorities. So, let's keep it, sure. Let's hope it doesn't stay as it is now, and people take some minutes to fix the info and the sourcing. That's it from my part. --Urbanoc (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Pole Trophy

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One § Pole Trophy

 – Wrong venue. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

There are currently no sporting regulations covering the 'Pole Trophy" the last set of sporting regulations I can find to mention the existence of such a trophy awarded at the end of the season for the most pole positions is 2018 with the regulations for 2019 omitting the "Pole Trophy". As such it appears to have been replaced with the wind tunnel tyre awarded after each qualifying event. I have tried to find sources for the winner of the 2019 and 2020 "Pole Trophy" as described, but none can be found. As such I think this needs removing from articles from 2019 onwards as the FIA from the loos of the regulations have scrapped the overall trophy at the end of the season with the Wind Tunnel tyres. The relevant regulation was 6.7 of the sporting code and I have included the 2014 to present Sporting Regulations for reference below:
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Sparkle1 (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• And yet Formula 1 still awarded Leclerc the Pole Trophy for 2019 (announcement on F1.com), so whether or not it is awarded is not solely determined by regulation. However, I agree with removing it from season infoboxes beginning with 2019 since it seems to be on the same level as the overtake award, pit stop award, etc. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• I have moved the discussion to WT:F1 since this does not relate to the Formula One article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One § Pole Trophy

 – Wrong venue. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding map of Grand Prix host countries

@Chaddy: You have removed a map that displays the countries that have hosted a Formula One Grand Prix from this article along with this one and this one, insisting it to be "propaganda", I assume because Crimea is grouped together with Russia. Firstly, regarding your edit summary, I never suggested there was an obligation to stick with the default – however, it is indeed true that disputed territories by default are grouped into the country who has the de facto administrative power in the region, even though you failed to include that part in your quote from the blank map documentation. It is not "propaganda", it's been left to the default based on commons:Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view, as explained by SSSB in this deletion request from last year. If you disagree with how the map handles international disputes, you are much better off initiating a new discussion on Commons on how the map should be coloured, rather than removing the map entirely from various Wikipedia articles. As an experienced editor, you should know that your personal disapproval with the grouping of Crimea is not grounds for complete WP:REMOVAL.

Pinging @SSSB: @Joseph2302: @Island92: @5225C: for some opinions so that this doesn't become an edit war between two people.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  01:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Map is not propaganda. It sums up where Formula One Grands Prix have taken place in the World so far, including those in past seasons such as Africa countries. Island92 (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• This has been a contentious issue for years but at the end of the day we're trying to show where the World Championship competes and has competed in a graphical form. What we aren't trying to do is show a politically-accurate map of the world. The deletion discussion is quite clear; there is no policy-backed reason to remove the map. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The only neutral point of view are the borders according to international law (the law also Russia is bound to by being a member of the UN). Showing the borders a nation wants to establish by forcibly breaking international law surely can not be neutral in any way, we support the point of view of Russia by this.
Thanks to this discussion I now have found this RfC and its preceding discussion from 2019/2020 for the article 2020 Formula One World Championship. Of course this only applies for this specific article, but the result is still interesting for this dispute here, too. The majority was against a colored map for various reasons and a map was suggested that only shows dots for the venues. I will ping all users that have participated in this RfC (as far as they haven't been pinged already by Ved havet): @Scjessey, @Tvx1, @DeFacto, @Sjones23. I also ping the creator of this map (@Cherkash) and @Unas964 and @RMN120501 (sorry if I have forgotten someone).
Another interesting point that should also be considered: The FIA itself sees the Crimea as part of Ukraine ([1]). Chaddy (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

We're not "supporting" anyone, we're sticking to the current, de facto situation in the world. It's a statement about what the situation is, not what it rightfully should be. E.g., the article of Afghanistan using the Taliban flag is not the same as Wikipedia "supporting" the Taliban regime.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  06:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

What the FIA thinks is irrelevant, as we are not the FIA. The funny thing is that you quoted commons:File talk:BlankMap-World.svg/Documentation#Territorial disputes where it says "It is left to the user to decide how to color them", but this doesn't support your view. It supports continung to colour the Crimea as part of Russia, as this is what was decided by the user who created the map (Cherkash). Finally, colouring based on de Facto vs. de Jure is equally neutral, and equally not propaganda. In fact, Chaddy, you are the one who is slippy into non-neutrality and propaganda by insiting we colour a map based on your political opinion, this is made worse by the fact you aren't consistently supporting de jure, as you have no problem with the de facto shadding of Taiwan (whoch, if we followed international law (or at least recognition), would be coloured as part of China). SSSB (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

International law is not my "political opinion", it's the basement of all international relations. But interestingly, exactly this is Russians strategy: Implying that international law just would be a "political opinion" which could legally be relativised by another "political opinion". And also whataboutism isn't helful. Taiwan is not the topic of this discussion here. You can start another discussion on the Taiwan subject. Chaddy (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Crimea is not the topic of discussion here, the topic of discussion is the map, so Taiwan is as relevant as Crimea. You cannot have it both ways. International law is politics, when countries decided on how they view the Crimea, they decided based on political alliances and international relations. The fact that you insist on showing the Crimea based on international law, but you aren't applying this argument consistently across the map shows that your arguement is based on your political opinion. Wikipedia is not the place for political opinions. SSSB (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course the Crimea is topic of this discussion here. It is the reason why these maps are disputed since years.

International law is not politics, it is law. Of course, governments ignore it when they want to. But the rules themselves are clear. You can not ignore this fact and tell the opposite.

You don't know anything about my political opinion. Please stop speculating about it.

All in all, your discussion stretegy is unfair and destructive. I only see whataboutism and derailing here from you. Please stop this. Chaddy (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The topic of the discussion is the map. This is where your problem lies. I don't dispute the fact that international law is clear, but if you insist the map follows international law, then you should insist it does so consistently. Otherwise your entire argument is fundamentally flawed, if you insist on one rule for Crimea, but are happy to apply a different rule to everyone else. The fact that you don't means you are turning a black-and-white issue (what rule set should we apply to the map) into a political argument (which territories should be coloured to international law, and which shouldn't). This isn't "whataboutism" from me, you are refusing to acknowledge that your complaint has wider implications. SSSB (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I will not play your whataboutism game. It is too obvious what you are trying here. But this will not work. Chaddy (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The only neutral point of view to represent the borders of sporting nations is to reflect the borders shown by that sport’s governing body. Since the FIA considers Crimea part of Russia, and thus the Russian Automobile Federation responsible for governing motorsport in Crimea, we should reflect. For the exact same reason we do not draw the United Kingdom as one country, per the UN/international law, but we draw England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as separate nations, per the FIFA.Tvx1 10:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The FIA considers Crimea part of Ukriane as I have proven. Chaddy (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You haven't proven anything. Your "proof" is WP:OR. I also seem to remember (from previous discussions) that the race programmes for the Russian Grand Prix showed Crimea as Russian. SSSB (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation of OR...

Here again my evidence: [2]. Chaddy (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, WP:OR. WP:OR states "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". What you've done is analyised the material (the lack of a line between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine) to reach a conclusion (that the FIA considers Crimea part of Russia) which isn't actually stated by the source. The source doesn't explicitly state how the FIA consider the Crimea, hence it is WP:OR. SSSB (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"What you've done is analyised the material (the lack of a line between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine) to reach a conclusion (that the FIA considers Crimea part of Russia) which isn't actually stated by the source." - Really? Have I to explain you how a map works? Chaddy (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The prenense or absense of a line on a map is WP:OR, it only implies what the FIA's stance is, it doesn't explicitly state it, and therefore it is WP:OR. And cut the patronising attitude, especially as your wrong.

While we are on the subject of the map. Kosovo is listed as an FIA member, but it's borders aren't on the map.[3] Does this mean that the FIA doesn't recognise Kosovo, of course not, because it is an FIA member. Proof that the map proves nothing, as it completely contradicts what it does/doesn't recognise. SSSB (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

There are (dotted) borders for Kosovo on this map. Do me a favour and stop your desinformation. Chaddy (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

All of this bullshit above is why the map shouldn't have the countries, only the venues. It's also worth noting that for many races (though not all, of course) the country has nothing to do with the race, which is normally arranged by a promoter and/or circuit independent of their government or nation. Take the countries out of the equation and the arguments go away. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Scjessey: +1 I also think this could solve this dispute. Chaddy (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I continue to strongly believe that any map should only show the precise location of venues, marked with a dot. As soon as you start shading in countries, you open yourself up to controversy and edit warring. With that said, I don't think this world map has ever shown any useful value to the reader in the first place. If you want to show that Formula One is a global business, just say so in the text. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Scjessey is speaking volumes of sense. Just use dots to represent circuits. Makes a load of sense - especially seeing as there are non-"national" GPs in the F1 championship. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree that shading doesn't add anything worthwhile. I never understood how the afore mentioned RfC reached the conclusion that there wasn't a consensus to remove the shading. However, I don't support removing the map entirely. A picture is worth a thousand words. Here the map doesn't show that F1 is a global business. It highlights the lack of races in Africa, and the prevalence of races in Europe. SSSB (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)