Talk:2017 Formula One World Championship

Order of Toro Rosso drivers

I thought we usually sorted drivers by car number? So shouldn't Gasly be before Kvyat? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

No, we have always order them on the rounds column. Drivers who replaced one another are grouped and ordered vertically in chronological order. See this discussion which you contributed to. You even signaled your agreement with the principle.Tvx1 13:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh. I totally remembered the outcome of that discussion wrong. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

As well as your own contributions to it, apparently.Tvx1 19:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Reviving this discussion because Palmer is out at Renault. It's expected that Sainz will take his place, allowing Gasly and Kvyat to race in Austin. Assuming that all of this plays out this way, how do we represent it in the table? The way I see it, there are two possibilities:

No.	Name	Rounds
26	Daniil Kvyat	1–14, 17
10	Pierre Gasly	15–17
55	Carlos Sainz Jr.	1–16

Or:

No.	Name	Rounds
26	Daniil Kvyat	1–14, 17
10	Pierre Gasly	15–16
55	Carlos Sainz Jr.	1–16
10	Pierre Gasly	17

The first version is tidier, but the second is more accurate because Gasly replaced Kvyat in Malaysia and Japan, and Sainz in Austin. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The bottom version is what we always tend to do.Tvx1 12:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — is it? I can't remember the last time something like this happened. I do it a lot on WRC articles, but that's because of the way points are awarded and it isn't a concern here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I personally find the first version cleaner and easier to understand as it keeps everything in its own column, whereas the latter is just splitting the same driver into two columns, making it - in my opinion: harder to follow. Abdotorg (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

That’s why we have the rounds column. It shows clearly who replaced whom and where. Prisonermonkeys, see Benetton in 1994.Tvx1 14:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — thanks. It's obviously a pretty rare occurrance, so 1994 slipped my memory. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It actually applied to two teams that year, it happened at Lotus as well. Also, HRT in 2011 has sprung to my mind.Tvx1 14:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — you're right. They completely slipped my mind. But I tend to tune out once it becomes obvious that Hamilton or Vettel is going to win the title, which is probably why I forgot. I can't stand either of them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I find the 1994 and 2011 examples quite weak, because back then, a replacement driver would take over a car with a certain race number, which is not the case anymore. Just something to think about. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, they still replace a particular driver and the effect on the rounds column is still the same. And we have always given priority to that column instead of the numbers.Tvx1 10:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Guys, you are rushing a bit. We need to wait till Gasly will be confirmed for Austin. There is still a big possibility that he will do Super Formula finale. [1] Corvus tristis (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel that, without the race numbers, this is just confusing to laymen readers of the article. No one who knows little about Formula 1 will understand why Gasly is listed twice. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, the round column serves to explain the information and the order of it. I actually think that listing Gasly just once creates more confusion. As you can see in the above example that leaves both the number column and the rounds column in some unexplained random mumble jumble. The first row has Kvyat entered in rounds 1-14 and 17. Fair enough. But what happened in round 15 and 16? Ah, The second row then has Gasly who apparently replaced him for those rounds, but wait! It has Gasly for round 17 as well, where Kvyat was entered and didn't have to be replaced? What's the point of that? Maybe the third row helps? No, that one just has Sainz from rounds 1-16. But where's round 17? I guess he was replaced and his replacement is underneath. No wait? There is no fourth row?? Who replaced him then? Was it maybe Gasly??? Or Kvyat????. The second table gives a much much clearer picture of who replaced whom and where.Tvx1 16:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I know it seems redundant to include Gasly twice, but it's a by-product of organising drivers based on the rounds they were entered in. It's more important that we indicate which round(s) they contested than it is to have a "neat" table. Editing decisions should prioritise content, not article aesthetics. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis — do you actually read Wikipedia articles before you edit them, or do you just charge in? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you read links which I provide in the edit summary or you just to lazy for this? Corvus tristis (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I read the links. But it's not my responsibility to fix your half-arsed edits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hooray! It only took you four attempts to get it right. Perhaps in future a little more attention to detail in your editing would go a long way. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

My "half-arsed edits" are edits at least unlike your barbaric biased actions. Like when you removed information about Palou without a reason. You have a responsibility not to add inaccurate information, which you have done two times. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

This isn't the first time you have rushed into an article and repeatedly insisted on making changes without thinking about how those changes affected the article, like you did with Correa. How about you stop and think about what you're doing before you do it? That way we wouldn't be in this mess. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably you should try to think about your actions. And if you bothered to read WP:IMPERFECT, nobody asks for perfection. Wikipedia is a work in progress. If you revert edit only because you don't like wording, than change it instead of pushing undo link. It was not that hard to add that Correa "is an American driver". But you always want only escalation with editors and not to collaborate for the common cause of Wikipedia, so you are reverting. It seems that you are cleary WP:NOTHERE. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Too err may be human, but to make the same mistake twice is stupid. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was a stupid mistake from your side to add incorrect information twice that Gasly confirmed for Austin. You are not hopeless. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to you. You made the mistake of not reading the article and thinking about how your changes might affect it with Correa. That's fine. But then you did it again with Gasly, which was just stupid. Sure, I could have made the changes for you, but then you wouldn't have learned from your mistake. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It was an irony, wise guy. I have read all the articles in which I have left an edit. So, I don't need your "lessons", which provides only disruption and false information. It is a way more stupid to provide data which is opposite to the facts. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

"I have read all the articles in which I have left an edit."

So why did you leave text in the article saying Gasly would replace Sainz?

"It is a way more stupid to provide data which is opposite to the facts."

There was no source in the article to justify the removal of Gasly. Gasly had previously been announced by the team, so removing him meant making a change to the article that required a source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Because I haven't paid enough attention for this (at least I can recognize my mistakes, you should try to recognize your mistakes sometime). But if you noticed that I missed this text in the first place, it makes your actions nonconstructive, and your desire to "teach a lesson" isn't an excuse for your disruptive editing. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, where you can "teach" editors which you don't like. Where is your WP:GOODFAITH, which you have required from me sometime ago? I have provided a source in the edit summary. I'm not obliged to put the source in an article every time I made an edit, especially when I am removing outdated and incorrect information. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Any change to an article that adds or removes content requires a source. You claimed that there was a change: that Gasly had been announced prematurely. Thus, you need to provide a source in the article. Putting it in the edit summary is not good enough. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

If content is incorrect I don't have to put a source for removal. WP:PROVEIT: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You restored the unverifiable material as the source (that claimed that Gasly will race at Austin) became outdated. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about your original claim. You cannot remove established content from a stable article without a source. The inclusion of Gasly replacing Sainz was based on this source from Autosport, which had the team announcing Gasly and Kvyat for the Austin race. Your edits removed Gasly, contradicting this source and without offering a valid source in the article to support the removal. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

No, that is plainly ridiculous. There is no policy or guideline that dictates us including a source in an article to support content that is no there in the article. Corvus tristis has cited the relevant policies and you should read WP:VERIFY as well. The source they provided in the edit summary is more than enough. It's crystall clear with its revelation that Toro Rosso's Austin announcement was premature. There should never have been such a childish discussion about such a simple issue.Tvx1 10:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

As I pointed out, we had a valid source (which is still in the article as source #59) stating that Gasly would race. Even if it was premature of STR to announce it, that doesn't invalidate the source. Corvus tristis removed that content, but did not provide an alternate source. So we had a source claiming Gasly would race, but the article contradicted it and provided no alternative evidence. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

That source should have been removed in the first place since Toro Rosso themselves contradicted it.Tvx1 13:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Except that source was used to confirm Kvyat, which wasn't a contentious claim. So either the source needed to be replaced with one confirming Kvyat, but not Gasly, or a new source stating Gasly would not race needed yo be added. You cannot remove content without a source when said removal leaves the article contradicting the sources. Corvus tristis got it wrong. He raced in and removed Gasly from the table when he should have removed Gasly from the table and from the text and provided an alternate source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@WikiEditorAU — this edit doesn't really work. Sure, it's relevant right now, but what is the article going to look like in a week from now? Wikipedia is not news; it's an encyclopaedia. The trick is to keep one eye on what's relevant right now, and one eye on what the article will look like a year from now, and balance the two out. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

In 7 days or less, we'll know for sure who's driving in the US. I think we should not mention in article, as it'll become irrelevant very quickly as Prisonermonkeys has said. Let's just wait til they arrive in the US and we find who's actually racing. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

And we have to remember what we're writing about here—the 2017 championship. So what's the most important detail here: that Gasly will not race in Austin, or that he is off competing in the Super Formula finale? It's true that we set up some context to each driver, but we don't document everything that they do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as the 2017 championships is concerned, what he does during the Austin weekend is irrelevant and should not be mentioned here. That information belongs in his biography. What is relevant here is who Toro Rosso do enter for the USGP and what result they achieve.Tvx1 12:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

According to ESPN, Hartley is replacing Gasly – not Sainz – for the USGP, and is therefore in Kvyat's original car, whereas Kvyat is now effectively in Sainz's car. Should the table therefore be amended to reflect this? Such as:

No.	Name	Rounds
26	Daniil Kvyat	1–14
10	Pierre Gasly	15–16
39	Brendon Hartley	17
55	Carlos Sainz Jr.	1–16
26	Daniil Kvyat	17

deaþe/gecweald (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

That does seem to be the case, the F1 website confirms this too. The way to tell is that the car previously driven by Sainz had the yellow T-cam, which Kvyat is now driving. The one originally driven by Kvyat and then Gasly and now Hartley has the black T-cam. Bbb2007 (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure they can switch those T-cams if they wish to do so.Tvx1 19:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that's reading a bit too much into the T-cam casings. The T-cams are used purely for identification (and their significance has faded with the advent of super-sized numbers and three-letter codes); there is no regulation dictating which driver carries which colour within a team. It's about as significant as which side of the garage a driver is set up in. I think we would also need to do a lot of work to explain the change in the article for something that is purely cosmetic. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, Hartley has a 25-place grid penalty for exceeding his quota of power unit components, even though it's his first race. He gets the penalty because the power units are assigned to the car, not the driver. Sainz used the components up and now the change has been introduced, so the car that was #55 gets the penalty. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, according to the FIA's own documents, the power unit components used by Sainz have been allocated to Kvyat for this race. Sainz was penalised in Japan for using a 6th MGU-H, 5th ICE and 5th TC. The allocations announced at the beginning of the USGP weekend show Kvyat as having already used 6 MGU-Hs, whereas Hartley was on his 5th. (Hartley's 25 place penalty included 5 places for taking his 6th MGU-H.) Therefore, as far as the FIA are concerned, Hartley has inherited Gasly's (previously Kvyat's) car, and Kvyat has inherited Sainz's. deaþe/gecweald (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cherkash — please read this discussion. The consensus is to arrange the table based om the rounds column, not the number column. It has been that way since personal numbers were introduced in 2014. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a hidden comment present in the tables since 2015: "As per the consensus established following the change in the number system, teams will now be arranged in the table ALPHABETICALLY by constructor, with the drivers in each team arranged NUMERICALLY." The consensus you mentioned seems to be in direct contradiction with the consensus mentioned in this comment. cherkash (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

That comment has been copy-pasted into future articles for years. I for one completely forgot that it was there. Nevertheless, a new consensus has been formed: alphabetically by constructor, then based on rounds, then numerically by driver number. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you point to the thread showing how this new consensus has been formed? cherkash (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a link in the second comment in this section. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I've tidied up the prose in the article. It's very complex at the moment (and it's about to get even moreso—Hartley replaced Gasly who replaced Kvyat; now Toro Rosso have confirmed Gasly and Hartley for Mexico, which means one driver technically moves to the other car, the ex-Sainz car), and detailing all of the changes is going to overwhelm the section. I've managed to cut 600kB from the article simplifying it to say that Toro Rosso rotated Kvyat, Gasly and Hartley between seats. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do you insist on muddying the waters and making it more difficult to find out what actually happened? See for comparison my latest edit where I made it clear who replaced whom. Your actions don't make any sense to me: on one hand, you insist on senseless details like two separate rows for Kvyat in the table (out of which you surmise the readers will have to deduce who replaced whom in what car) where on the other hand you refuse to actually spell out all these details in the prose below the table. cherkash (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Because it's a complex issue and discussing it would rely too much on minutae that distracts from the main point of the article. Like I said, Hartley replaced Gasly who replaced Kvyat, and now Toro Rosso have confirmed Gasly and Hartley for Mexico, which means one driver technically moves to the other car. What's the more important point here: that Toro Rosso rotated their drivers between cars across the last six races, or that we detail precisely which drivers contested which rounds? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out: I've read that 2015 discussion Joseph2302. Seems it ended without much conclusion, and the arguments used towards the end of the discussion were on cosmetic grounds (like re-sorting, and spanned-rows splitting) which are not too strong to decide how to present the primary info.

The question in my mind really boils down to what is the "primary" row in the table: is it 1) an instance of a driver participating in the championship under a unique car number + team combination (this combined definition should cater to both pre- and post-2014 systems), or 2) an instance of a driver driving a particular "car" as defined recently by the continuity of counting engine components, etc., but which is not well-defined prior to a couple years back (as multiple cars were used by the same drivers in a given season, without such sequence being tracked in any special way before the limitations on the number of units used were introduced). So I think we should address this question as this will define eventually in a logical way how we build up these tables every season. cherkash (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

"Seems it ended without much conclusion"

And yet editors agree that a consensus was born out if it. At WT:F1, you're in the process of arguing that there is a clear consensus, even if one user disagrees with it—but here, you're arguing that an established consensus is weak and that as the lone dissenting voice, it doesn't apply. So which is it going to be? You cannot have it both ways.

"So I think we should address this question as this will define eventually in a logical way how we build up these tables every season."

That question has already been addressed. The rounds column takes priority over numbers (unless drivers contest the same rounds), and we use it in such a way that we show who replaced whom. I think you're placing far too much emphasis on Toro Rosso's current driver swaps, but this is precisely what the consensus was designed to address. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Similar to what has been shown a few times in the past, you are bending the truth here Prisonermonkeys. Your selective interpretation of events is pretty misleading.

• For once, what do you even mean by the "lone dissenting voice"? You like to throw things around which make no sense, and which are being taken out of context.
• Second, that discussion was illuminating, but my commentary above applies: from having read it, I couldn't see much consensus being formed. It even ended with the last comment being "... Therefore it's a no go" which applied to an editor's opinion about a minor formatting issue; and just because no one contradicted it, and presumably people just moved on to better things, it's claimed there was a consensus formed.
• Third, even if the editors who participated back then do generally agree there was a consensus (and it's an "if"), there is enough reason to re-visit it now in view of the recent situation and the question that was raised how to best deal with it.
• Reading it carefully, it was you who claimed "it's a bad idea to edit based on obscure hypothetical situations" and here we are, dealing with what could back then be considered an "obscure hypothetical situation" on the basis of discussion in which you explicitly refused to discuss what to do in such hypothetical situations. It's a bad idea to form generic prescriptions while refusing to deal with hypotheticals, but then try to apply those generic prescription to "obscure hypothetical situations" that eventually arise. Do you see why?
• Also, There were blatant misrepresentations of the commonality (or a lack of) of certain prior editing decisions. E.g., it was claimed "This has been the way it's been done for every year since F1 started, listing all the drivers of 1 of the team's car, followed by all the drivers of the team's other car". This is an example of a nonsensical statement: until fairly recently, there was no such thing as a car continuity across the races. Meaning, there was no entity called "a team's car" which was tracked from one GP to the next. The teams were free to field whatever actual physical cars they seemed fit, without any repercussions or any limits imposed on these cars' configurations, on how extensively they were re-built, or even a quantity of such cars used throughout the season. There could even be cars swapped between the drivers in the same GP event, there could be main cars replaced with spare cars, etc. There was an at-times vague idea of an entry (having been allocated a certain entry number for a given GP), but even that had absolutely no continuity across the races for the first couple decades of F1. So even if there's a perception of a consensus that has been built back in 2015 when the discussion took place, it was partially based on very shaky ground.

As I said, I believe it makes sense to re-visit that discussion – or rather, specifically how we deal with a) the current situation in Toro Rosso and its presentation in the table and b) how Kvyat's participations are represented in the table. cherkash (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

"what do you even mean by the "lone dissenting voice"?"

You.

"it's claimed there was a consensus formed."

What do you think a consensus looks like? A statement in bold that says "All involved editors are in agreement, which means we have a consensus and that consensus is [...]"? I've never seen a consensus formed like that. And there is an entire form of consensus that can be established through the natural process of editing.

"So even if there's a perception of a consensus that has been built back in 2015 when the discussion took place, it was partially based on very shaky ground."

Only if you assume it applies to all articles, which it does not. It applies to articles from 2014 onwards when the numbering system was changed.

"how Kvyat's participations are represented in the table"

Kvyat replaced Sainz in Austin, which is what the table shows. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see all of this before I made my edit; I came to this page looking to confirm all of the drivers who drove for Toro Rosso this year and found it confusing that 5 were listed. Given that a reader shouldn't have to come to the talk page to comprehend the material in the article, and that in the past numbers were assigned to the cars whereas now they are assigned to the drivers, I feel listing Kvyat once makes more sense, and I don't see anything approaching consensus above that indicates otherwise, but revert away if you feel strongly. -Sketchmoose (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The consensus was achieved years ago. A discussion about it is linked somewhere. We don't need to establish a new consensus to reaffirm a new consensus. You are putting way to much emphasis on the numbers. We have always given precedence on the rounds column because that one is the vehicle that gives us best option to display who was entered with which car and where.Tvx1 19:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I can understand where Sketchmoose is coming from, but support the current version of the article. Kvyat did not simply return to Toro Rosso in Austin and normal service resumed—he returned to the team to replace Sainz. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand this approach in previous years, when each team had 2 car numbers, regardless of who was driving said car, and in this circumstance it made sense to have the same driver appearing twice in the same team. However, given the drivers have a single number, regardless of which car they drive. It seems a bit pointless having the same driver appear twice in a single team's section - surely the note would suffice to let the reader know he has in fact driven 2 cars. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys and Tvx1: so two more editors (Sketchmoose and Wikipediaeditperson) have just raised essentially the same concern I have with the current version of the page – Kvyat's two entries in the table are misleading and serve no purpose in explaining clearly what's going on. The table's primary purpose is to show drivers and teams that participate in the championship (along with some other details: car/driver numbers, engines, etc.), but not necessarily the virtual idea of "cars" as used by the FIA to track the use of engine components as has been done only in the last couple years. So it makes no sense to list Kvyat twice. If there is an insistence on having table reflect the "car" in the latter sense (for FIA tracking purposes), this information has to be added to the table and explained explicitly – without it the hidden/assumed information like this is not clear to a reader and it's more confusing than illuminating. So it's just a bad presentation. cherkash (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"So it makes no sense to list Kvyat twice"

Except for the way he took over the car Sainz had been driving, while Hartley in his original car, took a grid penalty. Therefore, Kvyat avoided a penalty, but listing him once implies something different to what actually happened. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The list is not a list of cars, it is a list of Teams and Drivers, therefore given Kvyat hasn't moved teams, nor has any of his driver information changed (he hasn't changed his number, his nationality, his name etc.), surely he should only appear only once, supported by a note explaining that he has in fact driven 2 "cars". Also, as Cherkash has mentioned, the "cars" are just a virtual idea to keep track of engine components - drivers change chassis, engines etc. regularly, so they aren't really driving the same "car" all season. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure they drive the same cars. The change of power unit components, gearboxes, survival cells etc is subject to strict regulations. They can't do that at will. Anyway, not listing Kvyat twice does more bad than good. I have already explained before how that would leave the rounds column in an illogical mess.Tvx1 15:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking at this table for the first time, and it is not remotely clear why Kvyat is listed twice. Tables do need to be clear and easy to understand at a glance, and if you have to look it up on the talk page, it is not reader friendly. It's going to need to be changed, and the simplest way is just listing Kvyat once. Older articles (i.e 2010 with Yakamoto) can list a driver twice because they track car numbers, but now F1 has changed to driver numbers there is no visual aid demonstrating that someone drove two cars.

I do not believe there is a consensus, as this is the first time a driver has used both cars within a team since 2014, and the linked discussions have not dealt directly with the matter. QueenCake (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

How much effort does it actually take to read the rounds column?? And the linked discussion have actually directly mentioned such a situation.Tvx1 16:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — I have to say that a lot of this feels like a response to Toro Rosso's driver merry-go-round which I think we can all agree is very unusual. I for one would be very hesitant about making changes with the potential to completely alter how we structure a table based on an isolated incident. The current solution might not be perfect (but better than the proposed alternative), but sometimes you just have to go with an awkward solution. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. The complication is created by the real-life situation, not by us.Tvx1 20:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Worth mentioning that Hartley has chosen 28 as his race number from Mexico onwards, haven't added yet as I wasn't sure whether this required another row, as is the case with Kvyat driving Sainz's car in the USA. Bbb2007 (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb2007 — yes it would. Hartley raced at #39 in Austin and #28 in Mexico. We might not need an entirely new row depending on which car he drives. It may look something like this:

No.	Name	Rounds
39	Brendon Hartley	17
28		18

But only if he is driving the same car as he did in Austin. Either way, a new row is needed because Gasly and Hartley drove the same car. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1 With regards to my comment above, I was not saying they just swap cars at will, but almost every driver will have at least 1 chassis change per season, and this in conjunction with the engine changes mean that few if any components will be on the car at the end of the season as at the start, and thus the competitor is driving a completely different car. This is why I don't see the reason for putting Kvyat on twice, simply because he drove a different "car", despite the fact that "cars" are merely a mechanism used by the FIA to track changes with regards to Gearboxes and Engines. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

In Hartley's situation, I understand the need for a new row, given he has changed number, but this didn't happen with Kvyat, so surely a new row for him is just adding confusion - If Hartley drives the same car as Austin, and therefore Gasly drives Sainz's (Kvyat in Austin) car, given Hartley has changed number, there will be 7 rows in TR for 4 drivers. It seems a bit ludicrous to me. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

And that's Toro Rosso's fault, not ours. They have created this situation which is equally ludicrous with 5 or 7 rows. Again see the rounds column.Tvx1 22:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we can blame Toro Rosso for our failure to provide the information about their drivers in a clear and concise manner. I have seen the rounds column, and I don't understand the problem with having it say "1-14, 17" for Kvyat, and this information being supported by a note explaining that he drove 2 different "cars". Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Toro Rosso have just announced that Gasly and Hartley will see out the season, which means the "tidy" version of the table would look like this:

No.	Name	Rounds
26	Daniil Kvyat	1–14, 17
10	Pierre Gasly	15–16, 18–20
39	Brendon Hartley	17
28		18–20
55	Carlos Sainz Jr.	1–16

Sure, it minimises the number of rows, but you've got to stop and think about it to figure it out. Conversely, the other version looks like this:

No.	Name	Rounds
26	Daniil Kvyat	1–14
10	Pierre Gasly	15–16
39	Brendon Hartley	17
28		18–20
55	Carlos Sainz Jr.	1–16
26	Daniil Kvyat	17
10	Pierre Gasly	18–20

It might look clumsy and redundant in places, but it makes the driver changes easier to follow. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't really make the driver changes any easier to follow, because you are simply splitting the TR drivers into 2 imaginary rows which signify the 2 TR "cars", but there is no attempt to convey this information to the reader. Essentially you have put the table below, without the "car" column, and this doesn't make sense to the reader if the "car" column isn't present, but the "car" column can't be present either, as the "cars" don't actually exist in the form of "Car 1 and 2". Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 11:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Car	No.	Name	Rounds
Car 1	26	Daniil Kvyat	1–14
	10	Pierre Gasly	15–16
	39	Brendon Hartley	17
	28		18–20
Car 2	55	Carlos Sainz Jr.	1–16
	26	Daniil Kvyat	17
	10	Pierre Gasly	18–20

It does make the driver changes easier to follow. It provides a clear chronology of the driver changes in the rounds column. Remove the repeated names and you end with Hartley put at some random place with his 17 and 18, leaving our readers having to guess who he replaced. I really don't understand why some people are so offended by having the same name twice. If the different rows create so much confusion, I'd consider adopting a style with much less lines like the one we used in 2014 and 2015. Something like this:

Red Bull Racing	Red Bull Racing-TAG Heuer	3 33	Daniel Ricciardo Max Verstappen	1–18 1–18	—
Renault Sport Formula One Team	Renault	27	Nico Hülkenberg	1–18	46	Sergey Sirotkin
		30 55	Jolyon Palmer Carlos Sainz Jr.	1–16 17–18
Sauber F1 Team	Sauber-Ferrari	9	Marcus Ericsson	1–18	37	Charles Leclerc
		36 94	Antonio Giovinazzi Pascal Wehrlein	1–2 1, 3–18
Scuderia Toro Rosso	Toro Rosso	26 10 28	Daniil Kvyat Pierre Gasly Brendon Hartley	1–14 15–16 17–18	38	Sean Gelael
		55 26 10	Carlos Sainz Jr. Daniil Kvyat Pierre Gasly	1–16 17 18
Williams Martini Racing	Williams-Mercedes	18	Lance Stroll	1–18	—
		19 40	Felipe Massa Paul di Resta	1–18 11

That way, the driver groupings are much clearerTvx1 13:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1, to address your reply to me, the rounds column did not explain why Kvyat is listed twice. It presented that Kvyat entered the USGP but did not indicate why this was different from his previous races.

I think that you and Prisonermonkeys should consider what you are trying to achieve, and how best to do it in a way that is clear to readers with minimal knowledge of the sport. I don't think it is necessary to present every piece of information in the table, particularly when we start to torture the table to do so. Adding an extra column to address one incident adds complexity - we have ten columns already - having drivers listed across multiple rows is unclear for the aforementioned novice reader. As of writing the driver row now has seven entries for four drivers, which is rather ridiculous. The situation is complex enough to merit leaving it out of the table, and explaining it succinctly in prose.

Someone has now added notes to the table, which I suggest to be used with a simplified table as follows:

No.	Name	Rounds
26	Daniil Kvyat	1–14, 17
10	Pierre Gasly	15–16, 18–20
39	Brendon Hartley	17
28		18–20
55	Carlos Sainz Jr.	1–16

-QueenCake (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, with QueenCake - this format makes the most sense. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it leaves the whole thing in an illogical mess. Brendon Hartley ends randomly put somewhere in that list of drivers and there is no way to know who he replaced. And absolutely nobody is actually suggesting adding an extra column. I don't know where that idea comes from.Tvx1 19:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Fully agree with that. It's not clear who replaced Sainz in that version and the reader has to stop of puzzle out who was actually driving in the final rounds. Reducing the entries to four lines seems to be a purely aesthetic choice, and editing decisions should not be based solely on aesthetics. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1 It is not difficult to work out who Hartley replaced, you can simply read the note. Also, you said no-one was suggesting adding an extra column - your current approach requires the invention of a virtual column ("cars"), which I showed above as a real column in order to demonstrate how the current table design relies on a column that doesn't exist, and is not explained to the reader. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Tvx1 you do know who he replaced, by reading the text below the table. And if it is necessary, you can add a note as demonstrated. A table is more of a visual medium than prose, and greater concern needs to be placed on how it is presented. Aesthetics is important when it effects readability. I argue that which driver replaced which is not that important in the context of the season, that it is more user friendly to not represent the change visually and explain it in prose, than it is to keep the table as it is now and leave readers wondering why Kvyat is listed twice and Alonso once. QueenCake (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

"A table is more of a visual medium than prose, and a greater concern needs to be placed on how it is presented."

Which is exactly what the current table does. It is a visual representation—the reader can clearly see who replaced whom and when. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The current representation is far from clear. The list of Toro Rosso drivers have been split into 2 separate rows to represent their 2 "cars", without any separation between the 2 rows, and no attempt to convey this information to the reader. The simple approach is to show the reader which races each driver took place in, and then they can read the notes if they wish to find out which driver they replaced, or which imaginary "car" they drove. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Wikipediaeditperson. It's not clear at all, not to anyone who doesn't already know what the table is trying to do. I think enough users have argued the point now that the concern cannot just be written off, and if a number of us are confused, many more readers are as well. QueenCake (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I have already put a proposal up here that seperates the groups of drivers more clearly.Tvx1 17:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1, you said "I have already put a proposal up here" - I feel that QueenCake's proposal was the one that led to the least confusion. However, clearly you are suggesting we can only choose one of your proposals as the route forward, and this appears to be common place in F1 related edits, where decisions are made by yourself and Prisonermonkeys and you expect the other editors to simply follow your lead, even when there are valid proposals to the contrary. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You're the one prioritising form over function. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

What kind of nonsense is that? I just mentioned my proposal in reply to your complaint about there not being enough separation between rows. I made that proposal when you raised that concern for the first time and I mentioned it again because I am under the impression it hasn't really be looked at. And QueenCake's proposal doesn't work because of multiple reasons. It leaves the drivers in an unordered random mess. In that version the drivers aren't ordered in any way. Not by number, not by driver name, not by rounds entered. I really cannot see how on earth that would make things easier to understand for our lay reader. Moreover, footnotes should supplement content, not replace it.Tvx1 20:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, in the worst-case scenario, we're going to wind up with something like this:

Manufacturer	Entrant	Car	Tyre	No.	Drivers	Co-drivers	Rounds
Citroën	Citroën Total Abu Dhabi WRT	Citroën C3 WRC	M	7	Kris Meeke	Paul Nagle	1–7, 9–11
					Andreas Mikkelsen	Anders Jæger	8
					Khalid Al Qassimi	Chris Patterson	12
					Stéphane Lefebvre	Gabin Moreau	13
				8	Stéphane Lefebvre	Gabin Moreau	1, 3, 11
					Craig Breen	Scott Martin	2, 4–8, 10, 12–13
					Khalid Al Qassimi	Chris Patterson	9
				9	Stéphane Lefebvre	Gabin Moreau	4, 6, 8
					Andreas Mikkelsen	Anders Jæger	7, 10
					Craig Breen	Scott Martin	9
					Khalid Al Qassimi	Chris Patterson	11
					Kris Meeke	Paul Nagle	12–13

And yes, this is an actual table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

At least there is a valid reason, which is presented to the reader, as to why the table has so many rows - the car numbers do not change, so the drivers were using a different car number. This is not the case in the F1 table, so there is not the same necessity for additional rows. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Tvx1 - Queencake's proposal is certainly easier to understand, as the fact is Toro Rosso is simply an F1 team with 2 cars at each round - there is no reason to distinguish between the 2 "cars", as this has no relevance other than the fact that the FIA use it to determine grid penalties for engine components etc. Admittedly, this could be ordered in a different way, such as by rounds entered, but the key aspect of Queencake's proposal was to remove the repetition of driver names, and I certainly believe this does make it clearer to the reader. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem with removing the repetition is that it scrambles the rounds column up. Take round 17 for example—did Kvyat replace Sainz or Gasly? It's unclear at best. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I still fail to understand why listing a name twice has to be such a drama for some.Tvx1 00:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1 — having re-read the recent discussion, I cannot explain it either except, apparently, that any repeated information is bad. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The reason why it is "such a drama", is because several editors, who are aware of the real life situation and information (who replaced who when), have found the table confusing, hence why we came here to find out exactly what the table was showing. If we were confused, then surely several more readers are also confused, especially those who are less knowledgeable of F1 and have come to the page without the prior knowledge of who replaced who when. QueenCake's approach made the most sense, as it provided the information clearly and concisely to the reader. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with QueenCake's proposal, and would like to add that I find it clear that Hartley was using Kyvat's original car as he is listed under Kvyat and Gasly and not under Sainz, as he would be if he was using Sainz's car (and therefore it can be deduced that Kyvat must have been using Sainz's original car). However, I would like to bring up the change Prisonermonkeys made to Alonso's entry, splitting it up into two rows, one before and one after Button's entry. This makes no sense as Alonso was using the same car both before and after Monaco, contradicting the format is used for the 2014-16 seasons, for example when Vandoorne replaced Alonso in Bahrain in 2016. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't put the drivers in an order in my table. It was principally a demonstration of putting the four drivers in four. If anyone wants to change the order, feel free. QueenCake (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

"I would like to bring up the change Prisonermonkeys made to Alonso's entry, splitting it up into two rows, one before and one after Button's entry. This makes no sense as Alonso was using the same car both before and after Monaco"

I was simply addressing a concern that someone else had raised—that Alonso's situation was handled differently to STR's.

"contradicting the format is used for the 2014-16 seasons, for example when Vandoorne replaced Alonso in Bahrain in 2016."

We're not bound to keep using that style if a new, preferred version emerges. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware that QueenCake made a comment on a casual viewer not understanding why Kyvat could be listed twice while Alonso was only listed once, but I took that more as a remark questioning why Kvyat was listed twice and Alonso only listed once considering QueenCake's proposal for the order of Toro Rosso drivers (QueenCake is in a better position to comment on this than myself though, as they made this comment). The situation remains however that no clear consensus has emerged for the order of Toro Rosso drivers and that no editor has clearly supported having Alonso listed twice, so I do not understand why that edit was made. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's an idea, albeit a slightly crazy one (and one that might need to go to WT:F1): what if we change what the rounds column means? At the moment, we use it to list all of the rounds a driver contested, but what if we change it to be the total number of races they were entered into? Paul di Resta's column says "11", but since the entry table is positioned before the calendar, it's not clear whether that means he entered round 11 or 11 rounds. He only entered a single round, so changing it to "1" would be equally accurate. This would bring the best of both worlds: it would limit the number of rows for Toro Rosso, but still allow us to prioritise the rounds column:

No.	Name	Rounds
55	Carlos Sainz Jr.	16
26	Daniil Kvyat	15
10	Pierre Gasly	5
28	Brendon Hartley	3
39		1

I don't think that's too confusing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, this is a possible solution, but one thing I fear is that we once again need to refer to the viewpoint of the casual reader - those who have read the F1 articles in the past will expect the rounds column to be set out as they are and may be confused to find all of the drivers have only entered 1 round, but I'm sure it wouldn't take too much working out.

Do you have any oppositions to QueenCake's proposal, if it were to be ordered in a different way, such as by rounds? I personally still feel this is the best proposal so far. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Wikipediaeditperson — I understand where you're coming from, but I think it's a short-term concern. I expect that within a year, it would be widely accepted, especially if it were applied project-wide. Until then, a Tooltip explaining the new function of the rounds column (and an invisible note in the table to deter changes) should be enough to inform the casual reader. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in favour as it provides less information that the current format. The current format tells the reader who the drivers were at each individual round, whereas this version does not. Regarding the "di Resta issue", I agree that if that was the only entry in the column it would be ambiguous, but I think the other entries in the column make it obvious to the reader that the column contains round numbers, not number of rounds. (Readers might wonder why Williams had three drivers for round 11, but that's a separate question). DH85868993 (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@DH85868993 — is that really the function of the entry list, though? The results matrix is far more able to break the individual entries down. If we treat the rounds column as the number of rounds entered, we get the best of both worlds. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Jumping back in to say I agree with QueenCake's proposal; the table is not meant to show all possible information; it is a list of teams and drivers, not of cars (which as pointed out above is something of a Ship of Theseus anyway), and the table without repeats is most effective at providing the information it is intended to provide. -Sketchmoose (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

So, does anyone have any objections towards the below format? - It is QueenCake's proposal, but the drivers are ordered based upon the first round they took part in this season.

No.	Name	Rounds
55	Carlos Sainz Jr.	1–16
26	Daniil Kvyat	1–14, 17
10	Pierre Gasly	15–16, 18–20
39	Brendon Hartley	17
28		18–20

Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope, it's a mess. Especially the Kvyat note. Notes should be used to explain supplementary information (like why Hartley used two numbers). It should not be used to explain the layout of the table. If it is used to explain the layout of the table, that tells you it's a poorly-ordered table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

While I have no issue with this variation on QueenCake's proposal, I (slightly) prefer the original for the reasons I have previously outlined, although both would be significantly better than the seven-row format currently in use. Contrary to Prisonermonkeys view, I do think that the use of notes is helpful, and could be applied to whatever format is decided. I also support keeping the rounds column as it currently is, as it not only provides more information than Prisonermonkeys's proposal, but is also in standard use among a variety of different motorsport series (not just F1), so to change it all would be impractical for an issue affecting a single season of a single series, as they should be kept uniform for better understanding. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

We are free to make changes to articles within the scope of WP:F1 as we see fit regardless of what other projects do if those changes suit out needs.

Furthermore, I'm not disputing the usefulness of notes—I'm just pointing out that they are for supplementary details and should not be used to explain the format of the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware that the rounds column could be changed just on articles related to WP:F1 (F1 season articles). My point was that doing so would make it unnecessarily confusing to readers of motorsports season articles in general. FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, but I still think it would be a short-term problem. Give it a little time and it would be accepted just fine. And WP:MOTOR might even get on-board with it before long. I for one plan on expanding it to WRC articles (with a few other big changes). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd just like to chime in with all of the other users voicing dissatisfaction with the current bizarre table. I am no stranger to Wikipedia or F1, and I've really struggled to make sense of it myself without pausing for a long while to consider the significance of splitting Kvyat into two but not Alonso, and so on. Ordering the drivers by "car" entities without giving any sort of clear indicator that this is what's happening seems too unintuitive and over the top to me. I'm fond of the improved proposals of Tvx1 and Wikipediaeditperson, with a preference for Tvx1's, although for coherency's sake I would add a separator between Ricciardo and Max and other unchanged lineups too. Waysiders (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Gasly

@WikiEditorAU: and Prisonermonkeys - there isn't an edit war about to break out, is there? Gasly is contracted, but it is referenced elsewhere in the article that Kvyat will race in USA. Mjroots (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It's already being discussed above at Talk:2017 FIA Formula One World Championship#Order of Toro Rosso drivers. Like I said there, we should just wait for the US GP and see what happens. It's 7 days til practice after all, and they'll name their drivers before that. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Constructor Standings

Something's not lined up properly in the points column. I don't have access to fix it.Real tlhingan (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone added a line for Hartley, but it was undone as being premature. When it was undone, not all of the markup was changed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Chart showing race-by-race competition

The below chart illustrates the (ongoing) cumulative points of championship contenders. It may supplement results by providing a clear visual representation through the races of the season.

• 1. Would this be a useful addition to a (ongoing) current season's page?
• 2. In the completed season articles, it has been in a separate sub-heading under 'Results and standings > Competition for the 2007 Drivers World Championship'. For a (ongoing) current season, should it go under a separate sub-heading, or sit inside the 'Results and standings > World Drivers' Championship standings' sub-section?
  

It would be great to hear any opinions before making or not making changes. Bamkin (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Competition for 2017 World Championship

Chart illustrating the cumulative point totals of championship contenders Lewis Hamilton, Sebastian Vettel and Valtteri Bottas through the 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship season race-by-race.  

It's a mess. For one, the colours are impossible to discern. The blue is far too light, and the colours of the Mercedes drivers too similar to discern in such a small image. Plus, you've got black text on a dark grey background.

More importantly, by only presenting three drivers, you're only selectively representing the championship. Vettel, Bottas and Hamilton are the only three drivers in mathematical contention now, but there are twenty-one other drivers out there scoring points.

In short, I find the entire thing to be unnecessary. We'd achieve more by changing the positions in the matrix cells to points. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for concise opinion on the relevance of presenting the competition for the WC. I suppose I had considered competition for the top place(s) to be a constitute part of the season. Indeed, the article begins with a photo of the championship leader, rather than all drivers; and the three drivers leading the championship are named in the article introduction but no other drivers. Regardless, I will not add unless there are more opinions to the contrary.

As an aside, colours and size are very easily changed by any editor! The question of whether a representation of the cumulative points or championship standings through time is helpful enough to use space in the article is probably the important one. Bamkin (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

"the article begins with a photo of the championship leader, rather than all drivers"

True, but the focus of the championship is to declare a champion. Thus, the current championship leader (and eventually the champion) is a natural fit.

"the three drivers leading the championship are named in the article introduction but no other driver"

There are only three places on the podium, and the lead is meant to summarise the article's contents. You're positioning this graph in the results section which details everyone's performances.

"colours and size are very easily changed by any editor"

Name for me twenty-four individual colours bearing in mind that they need to be distinct enough that colour-blind people (a very common condition) could distinguish between them.

"The question of whether a representation of the cumulative points or championship standings through time is helpful enough to use space in the article is probably the important one"

Then take it to WP:F1. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Good to see everybody agrees that one focus of the season is to compete for the championship.

I did not expect such a strong and wide-ranging reaction for a suggestion on the talk page. Nonetheless, I understand your main point to suggest that the results and standings section specifically should represent all drivers equally.

More broadly, if I understand correctly, changes to the standard layout are suggested at the Wikiproject page. I am not yet familiar with the WP-F1 processes, so will leave this here for anybody to either follow up if interested in a representation of cumulative points or standings at through the season, or leave to be archived. Bamkin (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:F1 is a WikiProject. It's a centralised hub for managing articles with a similar subject matter; in this case, Formula 1. WP:F1 oversees championship and race articles, teams, drivers, cars, circuits, records and everything else. WT:F1 is the talk page for project-wide discussions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)