Talk:2019 Formula One World Championship

Defining a race

The article should define what a Grand Prix is for the following reasons:

1) "other articles do something different" is not an argument; if we only ever do what other articles do, then we are writing this article to meet the needs of other articles first 2) the reader shouldn't have to read another article to understand this one 3) this article is about the entire championship, not just the changes Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alex9501:

1) All season articles must be standardized."

Please direct me to the Wikipedia policy that says that. I'll save you the time and tell you that there is no such policy.

"2) Oh really? Then why YOU removed note about point for fastest lap cause its "already written somewhere else"."

Yes, it is already addressed under the "regulation changes" section of this article.

"I, as a reader, looked at the points system table and didnt understand that only top 10 finisher gets point."

Then perhaps you should read the entire article first.

"4) This is related to race regulations, not calendar. Calendar is only calendar, not race procedure."

And you don't think the length of a race is relevant to the calendar, especially considering that not sll races are the same length? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I have one question to you. Why it's always you who do things to make articles worse and sometimes even unreadable (like that table without flags, cause now you need to look the whole table to find driver instead of immidiatelly finding e.g. Mexican flag for Sergio Perez)? Alex (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not unreadable. Those flagicons actually make the article less readable because they interrupt the natural pattern that the eye follows in the English language (left to right, top to bottom).

Now, would you please answer my questions? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

1) It's common sense (which you seems not to have) that all season articles (not only F1) must follow the same standarts of writing from season to season. 2) It doesnt matter if it's adressed in another section. Reader doesnt have to read whole article to find this info. ALSO it's included in changes section, so its only related to current season. But this info will also be nessecary in 2020, 2021... articles so the note should be in every + info about that in changes section only for 2019 article. 4) If you think it's that that nessesary maybe include distance in table for every race like in wrc? But if seriously, this info is not that necessary to reader. If it was, it would be included somewhere in main part of article. Still not in calendar.And as for flags, it became COMPLETELY unreadable without them. I actually dont care about etry list (but i see zero point in including it cause its not WRC and it will be the same for almost every race in season), but flags near drivers in results table must be there. It can take up to 5 seconds to find driver you need, and with flags it always takes 1-2 sec at max. Also if flags wont be necessary, there wouldnt be any flags in official F1 graphics. But they are there cause it's better for viever. Also you haven't answered why you intention is always to make something unreadable? Alex (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should include the top ten fastest lap clause in the season standings section, not everyone will read the entire article, I know that I certainly don't when I look back at past seasons, as for the rest of the problems discussed her I agree with Mclarenfan17, if we can make things better we should and the removeal of flagicons everywhere does not reduce readability. SSSB (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"It's common sense (which you seems not to have) that all season articles (not only F1) must follow the same standarts of writing from season to season."

No, common sense says that they should be similar. If they are identical, we could never change the format year on year to take into account rule changes.

"Reader doesnt have to read whole article to find this info."

That's what you do with encyclopaedia articles.

"But this info will also be nessecary in 2020, 2021... articles so the note should be in every + info about that in changes section only for 2019 article."

There is no reason why we cannot have prose in the 2019 article and notes in subsequent articles.

"If you think it's that that nessesary maybe include distance in table for every race like in wrc?"

Ask me again when Grands Prix are run to different lengths on different surfaces over a different number of stages like the WRC. Until then, stop making stupid arguments.

"flags near drivers in results table must be there."

Not according to WP:MOSFLAG. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

1) Why you could never change the format? You can. But then you should change every previous article in accordance to the new one. It's usually not done just because people are lazy, but it still doesnt mean that old articles should remain the same. 2) Then you can just go to another article to find that info about 305 km. 3) That note should be either in every article when point for fastest lap is awarded or not present in any of them. 4)By the way, about surfaces. I think it was you who removed colours from WRC articles that indicated surface type, or i am mistaken? Cause, as i said, it's usually you who try to make everything less readable. 5) "They are useful in articles about international sporting events, to show the representative nationality of players (which may differ from their legal nationality"). Alex (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Changing the format on one article does not make you obliged to change the format on any other article, each article is an independent entry on wikipeida, consistency in a choice not an obligation, I agree flagicons are useful in the articles but they only need to be shown once in the entry table, nowhere else. SSSB (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Using flagicons only once is also not an obligation. As i told, remove them from entry table and it will be only in results tables then. Results table is much more necessary (or you dont agree?) then entry table. Also i have no idea why you even decided to add that entry list table, which will be just copied from article to article with no changes (unlike WRC). Alex (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I know there is no obligation for them to be there just once, but putting flagicons everywhere is unnecessary and it actually makes the tables less readable as suggested in WP:MOSFLAG, why mention Hamilton's (or any other drivers) nationallity 3-4 times when once will do, extra flagicons serve no purpose. The entry table was discussed at length at the talk page and there was a consensus for its addition. SSSB (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Cause it's faster to find Hamilon in the table when you see British flag. You wont need to look at all driver names to find him. Will just need to look at British drivers. I agree that maybe there is not much purpose in including flags everywhere in the articles about championships where all drivers are from the same country, but in world championsip its a need to include flags in results tables. They serve the purpose of extra visual representation of a driver. And about concensus, it's already 4vs2 in favour of keeping flags. Alex (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, this discussion is 1v2 (alex95-ukraine vs me and Mclarenfan17), if you want to know Hamilton's result go to the entry table, find him (its got the british flag so you should manage) and looks at the results table, its not that hard. SSSB (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's not get too carried away here. We're supposed to be discussing the issue of defining a race. The question of flags is for another talk page.

Alex9501, we're willing to hear you out, but right now you come across as very aggressive. You have avoided answering the questions asked of you by others and the arguments you have presented so far amount to "because I say so". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

1) It doesnt matter how much people present in this discussion. Others showed their opinion somewhere else or by their edits. This is enough. 2) I dont know what more to discuss here. I've written arguments for both topics but i see only "this is irrelevant cause i said that" and "we two think that flags shoudlnt be there so they wont be there" in reply. Even despite article, which one of you (or maybe both) linked, states that flags are usefull to represent nationality. As for questions, actually it's you who ignored a few of my questions like that question about wrc and at lest one other. As for defining a race there is nothing more to say. Its calendar section, not race regulations. Its been like currently for years and you changed that without consensus just because you wanted to. Alex (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:EDITCONSENSUS applies. The definition of a race was added and when nobody objected, it was accepted as a consensus. Then you came along and claimed it had to be removed, because other, similar articles don't do it, which is WP:ALLORNOTHING and not an argument since other, similar articles do do it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I sympathize with the effort to avoid having to force readers to navigate between articles, but I think you're being over concerned there. We can't possible have every piece of jargon combined with a full explanation. Specific terms are adressen during GA and FA nominations and every time we are reminded that we have a perfect vessel to deal with this. Our Glossary of motorsport terms. So I really believe the full explanation of a grand prix is undue here.Tvx1 01:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Fastest lap indicator

I feel like there should be some sort of indication next to the finishing position of the drivers that get the fastest lap in the World Driver's/Constructors' Championship Standings. I was thinking a star would be good so, for instance, Bottas' Melbourne race result would look like: 1*

And then in the template notes you could just say: "* - Driver received 1 world championship point for the fastest lap of the race." This way, at a glace, people could know which drivers got which fastest laps. Ya feel me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanmeister (talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ethanmeister:, we already have an indicator for the driver who got fastest lap, italics. SSSB (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB — but that indicates who set the fastest lap regardless of who now gets the bonus point. I think that what @Ethanmeister is proposing is a way of indicating who got the bonus point, if anyone did. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17:, we tried to do that with the note in the table that shows points distribution stating that "the point for fastest lap will only be awarded if the driver finishes in the top ten", but you wanted to remove it because it was already mentioned in the article, the idea being the note together with the italics it is clear whether or not the point is awarded. SSSB (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

That's in a separate table. We're talking about the results matrix. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17:I know what we are talking about, but the results table shows the results not the point allocation, the point allocation belongs in that separate table I talked about. Therefore we should put the note stating the fastest lap point requirement in that table and that matched with the italics in the results table then shows who if anyone got the point for fastest lap. SSSB (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I had been thinking about these indicators as well. However as this affects all articles with such results tables, I will raise this at WT:F1.Tvx1 01:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A † is already used to indicate a retired driver that was classified, why not use ƒ or something to indicate fastest lap in the same way?

Tyres

I would find it interesting to know which tyres were provided by the tyre manufacturer for each race. For the avoidance of doubt, I don't mean the tyres chosen or used by each driver, I expect that would be too much detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pylgrim (talk • contribs) 07:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Pylgrim: firstly I think this kind of inclusion is best suited to individual race reports. I also happen to know that we actually do have that kind of information available at 2019 Australian Grand Prix and that it was included in several race reports pre 2019. Personally I would be against such an addition as knowing which tyres from the c1-c5 range doesn't have any bearing on the race report (the only reason they were there before was to specify that soft would be hardest tyre at some races however this is no longer a concern). I would therefore consider the inclusion of such information redundant and bordering on violating of WP:NOSTATS. Than again I am only one editor and if others if the consensus is for such information to be included I won't push to hard against it. SSSB (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Pylgrim and SSSB: I always included this information in the race articles I brought to GA for 2015 and 2016. I agree that these articles are where the information should be. Unfortunately, the race articles do not get much attention anymore these days. I am too busy with other stuff to do them (I am also quite bored by F1 at the moment, if I'm perfectly honest...). Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Does a Formula One race have to happen or weekend to start before the race's page is created?

I am new here and I joined after noticing that links to the races which have not yet taken place link back to this page. Is that the usual practice? Are race pages added only after the Grand Prix weekend has started? I believe there is plenty of useful information that can be provided prior to the race starting.

KenyanJake (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)KenyanJake

KenyanJake, we tend to unredirect when the official entry list for the Grand Prix is realesed (will be found here for Canada). This is usually the Thursday before the weekend. Sometimes we may do this earlier if there is sufficent information available about the event (i.e. other than it will take place and some drivers and teams are expected to take part) Hope this helps, SSSB (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Why though? This seems arbitrary and heterogenous with the rest of Wikipedia. There is plenty of information that could be stored in this page. Why redirect if people want specifically to navigate to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Striker161 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Striker161, plenty of information such as what. I certainly can't think of much. Wikipedia's Notability policy on events would suggest that at this point articles on the 2019 Canadian Grand Prix and Grands Prix thereafter should not be created as anything more than redirects as there isn't any news on the event other than it is scheduled to happen happen. If you disagree with me on this you are of course welcome to be bold and create articles on future Grands Prix however at this stage there really isn't any information specific to the 2019 Canadian Grand Prix (which is appropriate for an encylopedia) to create an article only info which shouldn't be on an encylopedia (such as start times) or info which is/should be on different pages (such as 2019 Formula One World Championship, 2018 Formula One World Championship, Circuit Gilles Villeneuve or Canadian Grand Prix). On a seperate note please take care with your indentations, I will fix the one above for you. SSSB (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Mission Winnow

@Admanny and Mclarenfan17: Please don't edit war over the use (or lack thereof) of the "Mission Winnow" sponsorship. As Mclarenfan17 said, the note is by far the better solution because it doesn't uglify the table. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)