Talk:2023 Formula One World Championship: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:04, 27 September 2022

Formula One Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.

View the task list
Discuss the project
Help out with Portal:Formula OneFormula OneWikipedia:WikiProject Formula OneTemplate:WikiProject Formula OneFormula One articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page was proposed for deletion by Utopes (talk · contribs) on 13 April 2020.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Speedy delete, 12 September 2020, see discussion.
Delete, 20 April 2020, see discussion.

What's the point?

Sorry to be a a pain, but is there some sort of convention that dictates when we create new F1 championship pages? If there isn't, what is the gain to Wikipedia by creating a page about a sporting event that won't happen for 1 1/4 years? BMB YT 500000 (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BMB YT 500000: the convention is to create the page when there is enough unique content for the page (we generally want something beyond contracts, most relevant here is WP:TOOSOON). There is nothing to gain by this page existing now, as it falls foul of WP:TOOSOON]] which is why I tagged the page with {{Db-repost}}, citing a previous deletion discussion which yielded a delete consensus, which itself cited WP:TOOSOON. SSSB (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB Great, thanks. BMB YT 500000 (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (information presented in entrants table and calendar is correct according to current contracts) --GTDrift19 (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. That was the case during the previous two deletion discussions, yet it was still deleted on the grounds of WP:TOOSOON. SSSB (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protection

I think the block of "2023 Formula One Word Championship" should be removed. The reason given for the block in October 2021 was faulty since it is not the same to start this article in late 2021 or in 2022 as in 2020. A deletion reason that may have been valid in 2020 cannot necessarily be considered valid any more when the date changes. I doubt that the admin deleting the article in October 2021 had a real look at the article; he just saw that the article was deleted previously. Also, there is a draft for this article already and it should be moved to the article now since more info begins to come in and due to this block of recreation the development of the article is seriously hampered. --Maxl (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Right now there is no unique content for this article to contain, and therefore there is no reason to create the article. SSSB (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? --Maxl (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, what content have you got? SSSB (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:2023_Formula_One_World_Championship - I said so before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxl (talk • contribs) 22:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SSSB was asking for unique content for this article. A list of contracts does not satisfy the GNG, and creating the page from that draft would make it elegible for deletion under CSD § G4 because it would be sufficiently identical to both previously deleted versions (which are all just lists of contracts). Until coverage of the season exists, an article can not. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it does "not satisfy the GNG"? It is genuine information! --Maxl (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only source about the 2023 season is the source about the Qatar Grand Prix. Even then, it only mentions the 2023 season in passing, so I agree that it doesn't meet the criteria laid out in WP:GNG (significant coverage being the issue). SSSB (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because some information exists does not mean an article should. Wikipedia is not a database and without coverage of the season, a list of contracts does not satisfy the GNG. If that draft were to be transferred to mainspace it would be deleted via G4 since it would contain the sufficiently same information as the previous two versions which were deleted as failing inclusion guidelines. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article should definitely exist

Actually, it should have existed a long ago. Historically, we have always had an article for the next season that covered all the development - proposed calendar, proposed regulation changes, confirmed drivers or confirmed retirements, etc. As a Wikipedia user, I expect this article to exist and provide the information I mentioned. When I want to remind myself who will be driving for which team next year (or which team still has a vacancy, i.e. no signed driver), or what races will be added or removed, my first choice is always the Wikipedia page for the next season. This time, through the stubbornness of the admins, who falsely believe there is nothing to be covered yet, Wikipedia has failed me. We are well into the part of the season when information about next year is being announced bit by bit and Wikipedia must cover that from day 1. Peepay (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does this draft meet the GNG? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, I have no idea what your fancy acronym means, I am providing a real-life, honest and authentic use case of what a Wikipedia visitor expects from it. You can either listen to your users' feedback, or you can keep doing what you are doing and watch your users slowly give up on you. If there was an option to provide a rating, I would give 1 star for not listening to the people the service should be for and refusing to provide the information the visitors are after. Peepay (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - GNG is "general notability criteria", the criteria is outlined here: WP:GNG. SSSB (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - We aren't a service with customers, we're an encyclopaedia, and we're in the 'business' (figuratively speaking) of producing encyclopaedic articles. If you can't demonstrate why it's worthy of encyclopaedic coverage, it doesn't get an article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This comment makes it sound like you use Wikipedia for news, or to remind yourself about old news. But Wikipedia is not a Wikipedia is not a news site, or an archive of old news. SSSB (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not news. Just a summary table with the information - information that is based on the news, that can be referenced to. There is a list of races that are not yet contracted to be run next year, there is a list of teams and drivers, each can be linked to the announcement when the driver was retained, etc. This is all encyclopedic information, just like in the page for this season. Many pieces of information for next season are already available, so it should be taken for granted that there will be a Wikipedia page that shows the list, the table, etc. Peepay (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that the article should be created. I think that the recent sources covering Vettel's retirement and who should replace mean that GNG is satisfied, and it arguably was before. These sources are unlikely to feature in the article itself, as they usually speculate, but the sources do exist, meaning that (although the revision would be substationally the same) I believe it would survive a new AfD, and if it is speedily deleted again, I will take it to WP:DELETION REVIEW. SSSB (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - As an after thought the coverage of potential regulation changes for 2023, vis-a-vis the floor mean that a new revision would be substantionally different (I will add it to the draft tomorrow, and then request removal of page protection, if I remeber)
    Generally speaking, I would suggest that in future we create season articles in around the June the year before (i.e. 2024 Formula One World Championship would be created by June 2023, am open to other months) with a WP:IAR approach to WP:GNG as a Formula One season can reasonably be presumed notable even without sources that specifically discuss that season (due to a lack of news). Because I feel that with this article we have gone from one extreme (created in early 2020) to another (still not created in August 2022). SSSB (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - If sources don't specifically discuss the season, the season isn't notable. This article might be worth creating (mainly because of upcoming regulation changes) but I would strongly oppose making an arbitrary assumption about when we start writing a season article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5225C (talk • contribs) 03:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I picked June because that's generally when sources start speculating about the following. And if you google "2023 Formula One" you see that this is broadly accurate. I just feel that we are applying the criteria of WP:GNG excessively harshly or even incorrectly. Particularly given your statement of "How does this draft meet the GNG?" The draft doesn't need to meet GNG, the subject does. Even though the draft is substantially the same as the deleted draft, I believe that it wouldn't/shouldn't be deleted due to the breadth of sources that cover the season in the media. SSSB (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Speculation does not make an article though; it does not demonstrate notability. I mistakenly thought this was the draft's talk page when it first appeared in my watchlist, but the point I was making was the same as that made in all the deletion discussions: there needs to be coverage of the season, not of its constituent parts. I would consider the recent regulation changes to go some way towards meeting the GNG. Regardless, I wouldn't be willing to support any guideline that allows for the creation of a season article before the usual notability requirements are met. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Speculation does demonstrate notability, as it is extensive coverage of the season. there needs to be coverage of the season, not of its constituent parts. is also wrong. No source is going to cover every part of the season until someone publishes a pre-season preview in the week preceding the opening round. This is exactly what I mean, you are applying WP:GNG in an overly strict fashion. Later today, I will request the unprotection of this page, citing the variaety of sources that are now speculating over next year's calendar and driver line up. SSSB (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        We clearly have different readings of inclusion requirements, but I look forward to seeing the variety of sources you will present to demonstrate notability. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] demostrate extensive coverage of the 2023 season, satisfing WP:GNG. SSSB (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Like 5225C, I strongly oppose putting an arbitrary date forward at which this sort of articles is created. The creation of these articles should only occur when there is sufficient unique content for the season in question. There is no rush and Wikipedia does not work with deadlines.T v x1 10:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

Although this version is substationally similar to previous versions, a large number of new sources now exist, meaning the grounds of the last deletion discussion (WP:TOOSOON) no longer hold true. See as an example: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. SSSB (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of diffuser

Diffuser is clearly spelt wrong (diffisur) in the following paragraph “Following large amounts of porpoising during 2022, the FIA is introducting changes to the regulations to limit excessive porposing. Floor edges will be raised by 25 millimetres (0.98 in) and the throat of the diffisur will also be raised, by a yet to be determined amount. Lateral floor deflection tests are also due to be more stringent.” Please correct it 2A02:C7F:5817:8E00:F045:A264:B3B4:5B02 (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, T v x1 09:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabian Grand Prix

It seems highly likely that the 2023 Saudi Arabian Grand Prix will be held at the Jeddah Corniche Circuit, as the official circuit social media accounts are saying preparations are underway for a third race there. https://www.instagram.com/p/Cg2Wbxaom4D/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link Norgz1328 (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait an announcement made by Formula One first. It's too much early for the time being Island92 (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Piastri Driver Number

Piastri’s driver number is listed as #81 has this been confirmed yet? 5.68.144.17 (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he tweeted the hashtag OP81, which would likely mean that's the number he's using and its free as well Norgz1328 (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:OR, I'm removing it. SSSB (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? He, personally, confirmed it. Island92 (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: A hastag is not confirmation. Unless he used the words "I'll be using number 81" (or something of that ilk, text or speech, either is fine), it is WP:OR. SSSB (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been confirmed on Racefans.net, attached is the headline for it confirming that Piastri will race with the car number 81. https://www.racefans.net/2022/09/27/piastri-explains-why-he-chose-number-81-for-f1-debut-in-2023/

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Are we allowed to add date of 2023 Australian GP? proof: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/date-set-2023-australian-grand-prix/10353304/ Marcusyg (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typically we don't add any dates until the draft calendar is published. It doesn't really make a great deal of sense, from an encyclopedic point of view, to list the confirmed dates of Grands Prix when most are unknown. In short, I feel this addition would fall under WP:NOTNEWS. SSSB (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Official Calendar released

The official 2023 calendar has been confirmed by the FIA https://www.fia.com/news/2023-fia-formula-one-world-championship-calendar-approved-wmsc JamesVilla44 (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are we waiting for? XT RedZone (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@XT RedZone: we were waiting for someone to get round to it. We have lives outside of Wikipedia, you know. SSSB (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2022

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at 2023 Formula One World Championship. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Remove the AMR-23 and the Merc W14 from the entry list as it has not been confirmed yet and also add car number 81 to Oscar Piastri as the car number has been announced by himself on his twitter already 218.188.208.98 (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Piasti hasn't announced anything. He used a hastag. That's not the same thing, and using the hastag "#OP81" to cite this material is WP:OR. Aston Martin's team principal has used the name AMR23, that's sufficient confirmation. W14 is more questionable, it is merely the writer's assumption, so I'll leave that one open for further discussion. SSSB (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 ::That's [[WP:OR]], I'm removing it. [[User:SSSB|SSSB]] ([[User talk:SSSB#top|talk]]) 14:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 :::Why? He, personally, confirmed it. [[User:Island92|Island92]] ([[User talk:Island92|talk]]) 17:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 ::::{{re|Island92}} A hastag is not confirmation. Unless he used the words "I'll be using number 81" (or something of that ilk, text or speech, either is fine), it is [[WP:OR]].  [[User:SSSB|SSSB]] ([[User talk:SSSB#top|talk]]) 21:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
+It has now been confirmed on Racefans.net, attached is the headline for it confirming that Piastri will race with the car number 81. https://www.racefans.net/2022/09/27/piastri-explains-why-he-chose-number-81-for-f1-debut-in-2023/
 == Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022 ==