Talk:2023 Formula One World Championship

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• How does this draft meet the GNG? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • GNG is "general notability criteria", the criteria is outlined here: WP:GNG. SSSB (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)

      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
            • 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)
              • 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)

                [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)

      • 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.Tvx1 10:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

 Fixed, Tvx1 09:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

@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)

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/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:2E10:900:207D:9256:C91A:8A86 (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it's been added- agree that with this new source confirming it, it is fine to add. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022

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)

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)

 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)

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)

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

@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)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2022

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)

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)

Piastri number has been done based on a proper source now: [15]. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

for the chassis name, can you give any link for proof? 218.188.221.130 (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The links are in the article, next to the content (in the entry table). SSSB (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2022

As of 06/10/2022, the Belgian Grand Prix Weekend (28-30 July 2023) clashes with the TOTALENERGIES 24 Hours Of Spa, a Fanatec GT World Challenge Europe event. Ojoj149149 (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• No, it does not, since this was resolved an entire 2 weeks ago. A simple Google search would have resolved this. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

De Vries Driver Number

The driver number de Vries is going to use in the 2023 season is listed as TBA while he has had previous sessions using #45. I'm unsure if a procedure has to be completed to verify #45 for the 2023 season but isn't it highly unusual to change a driver number? --Jurgenwesterhof (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jurgenwesterhof: when De Vries participated this season he was standing in for another driver, and #45 was assigned to him as a temporary number. For next year, he will be allowed to pick his number, hence the TBA. List of Formula One driver numbers probably explains it better.

Ps the reply link is added automatically to the end of signatures. It isn't something you need to manually add. If you sign your comment, the reply link will appear. SSSB (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@SSSB: Thanks for explaining Jurgenwesterhof (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Reserve driver 2023

Anybody know who will be reserve/test driver per team for 23 season? All i know is

Mercedes: ricciardo Aston martin: drugovich & varndoorne Haas: fittipaldi Alfa romeo: theo 36.80.147.102 (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Then you know more than me, although Ricciardo's role is still unconfirmed speculation. But, please only discuss the article here, not the subject of the article per WP:FORUM.

If the point you are getting at is: why doesn't this article list the reserve drivers? It is becuase they don't play a part in the season, at least not anymore than the engineers, or stratergists, so it would be outside of the scope of the article to discuss it here. When the final race of the season is over, next year's confirmed reserve drivers will appear in the infoboxes of the relevant teams. SSSB (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Nico Hülkenberg confirmed in the Haas team

Nico Hülkenberg has been confirmed by the Haas team for a seat in 2023. It was announced by Motorsport.com

″I was not prepared to going into the Aston Martin, but into Haas i have yet.″ Nico Hülkenberg https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/haas-set-to-announce-hulkenberg-f1-deal-for-2023/10399888/— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matulda4 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

expected to confirm ≠ confirmed. set to announce ≠ announced--H4MCHTR (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, right now this is nothing more that speculation. SSSB (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Ricciardo as Red Bull reserve driver

Helmut confirmed this during FP1 at the Abu Dhabi GP 2022 Lineupandwait (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Reserve drivers have never been mentioned in the season articles afaik. H4MCHTR (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Plus he's not reserve driver, Liam Lawson is. Red Bull didn't help by using the meaningless term "3rd driver" but Helmut Marko made it clear. As OP says though, unless he actually races that's not something that's historically been noted anyway. Duds 2k (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Chinese GP

The Chinese GP is "expected to be cancelled", but this hasn't been officially confirmed yet, so it is WP:SPECULATION to claim on here that it's been cancelled. Read the sources: Crash, BBC, Planet F1 all say expected or set to be cancelled, but we must wait until F1 actually confirms this. Pinging Eurovision1323 who I reverted on this. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

And ping also to Island92. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Also, in my opinion, a sentence that the race is "expected to be cancelled" is unnecessary in the article. H4MCHTR (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree. For today's this source Formula One says the Chinese Grand Prix remains on next season's calendar. "We continue to monitor the Covid situation in China and maintain a close dialogue with the promoter and authorities". I restored old version.--Island92 (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It’s cancelled now. Tvx1 14:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Island92: you've just removed the TBA slots for the Chinese GP saying "it will not be replaced". There has been no announcement from the FIA or F1 that it would not be replaced, to the contrary the search for a replacement is ongoing and circuit representatives have been making statements even in the last 12 hours. Why has it been removed? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Per this source the 2023 calendar has been updated without the slot to replace the Chinese Grand Prix.--Island92 (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2022

Change

Chinese Grand Prix China Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai 16 April

to

Chinese Grand Prix Shanghai International Circuit, Shanghai 16 April [CANCELLED] Rohitpad (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

No, not until it has been confirmed, see above. --Marbe166 (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2022

Remove the AMR23 and W14 link and their references in entry list as the chassis name has not been confirmed yet 218.188.221.130 (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: From what I see, both links are reliable sources. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2022

please change name of engine of Red Bull to Honda RBPT as that was how fia mentioned in the 2023 entry list, proof: https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2023/2023-fia-formula-one-world-championship-entry 223.19.112.230 (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

 Already done SSSB (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

i didn’t see the change, it is still [[Red Bull Powertrains|RBPT]] instead of [[Honda in Formula One|Honda]] [[Red Bull Powertrains|RBPT]] 218.188.221.130 (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The constructor column reads "Red Bull Racing-Honda RBPT" and "AlphaTauri-Honda RBPT". Or are you talking about somewhere else? SSSB (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m talking about the row “Power Unit”. 223.19.112.230 (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2022 regarding to add a new section “Car release date”

Please consider add a calendar of the launch date of each team’s car as Aston Martinhad revealed their date of car launch. 223.19.112.230 (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done This is unnecessary for the season article, can be appropriately covered on each of the cars' articles (when they are eventually created). 10:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• It shouldn't be mentioned anywhere. It fails WP:TENYEARTEST, in fact it doesn't even satify a ten week test. SSSB (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

F1 vs Formula One vs Formula 1 in the teams' names

@Ved havet and Island92: I can see there is a disagreement regarding McLaren's team name, namely that the entry lists show the team has entered as "McLaren Formula 1 Team" while we have previously displayed it as "McLaren F1 Team". Although McLaren is the point of disagreement, Mercedes and Aston Martin have entered themselves as Mercedes-AMG PETRONAS Formula One Team" and "Aston Martin Aramco Cognizant Formula One Team" but have been listed as "Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 Team" and "Aston Martin Aramco Cognizant F1 Team". This has been done for several previous seasons, but I am not aware of any existing WP:F1 consensus. I am of the opinion that the team name should be reproduced exactly as it appears on the entry list (minus capitalisation styling) but I can understand that abbreviating Formula One or Formula 1 to F1 doesn't really have a functional impact. Treating them consistently is, however, vitally important, so we wil either have to reproduce all team names exactly as they appear on the entry list, or abbreviate all team names. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

We should either reproduce them exactly as they appear on the entry list (minus stylised capitalisation) or we should just render them as "Mercedes", "Ferrari", "McLaren", etc (which is already done in the constructor column and doesn't need to be repeated in an entrants column). I can't see the justification for somewhat arbitrarily abbreviating part of some of the teams names. If the entry list says "F1 Team" for some teams, "Formula 1 Team" for other teams, and "Formula One Team" for others, then we should reflect that accurately. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, it is a minor difference. Last year we had "Formula One" for Mercedes and Aston Martin, then changed to F1 in the first race entry list. It will definitely be the same in 2023 for a question of room in the line in the FIA document. For McLaren is the first time ever and it will not be an issue-room whether FIA list them as F1 or Formula 1 in Bahrain. Hence imop let's keep McLaren Formula 1 Team for the time being. Island92 (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The point about room in the document causing the need for abbreviations is interesting, and I’m unsure of how to handle it. One solution is to simply stick with the season entry list for team names, but there might come other changes in round entry lists like sponsorship changes, and there’s a question to be asked about at what point it becomes WP:OR to differentiate between what changes should be included or not.

Regarding McLaren specifically, I think "Formula 1" makes sense, at least at the moment. It’s the first time it’s been changed, it’s not because of room, and last but not least, it’s how they spell it in their logo. It’s always bugged me personally how it’s not been abbreviated in the logo, but has been in the fully written out name. Made no sense. But that’s a subjective opinion, not an argument.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  14:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

There is definitely no issue-room for McLaren, whether they are listed Formula 1 Team or F1 Team. The case is different for Mercedes and Aston Martin. Listing them Mercedes-AMG Petronas Formula One Team and Aston Martin Aramco Cognizant Formula One Team, respectively, like currently in the general championship entry list, will force a double-line in the first race entry list. To make it simpler and to be read on one line, FIA choses F1 Team. In their logos, however, there's always been Formula One both for Mercedes and Aston Martin.--Island92 (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ved havet: They always put F1 Team. I found a 2016's case in which was indicated Renault Sport Formula One Team for example, which means they could have added Renault Sport Formula One Team in the first race entry list, following the same name reported in the general entry list, rather they put Renault Sport F1 Team, no issue-room involved in the document. I widely think will be the same for this year's McLaren, hence I put again McLaren F1 Team.--Island92 (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2023

Shall we also add the team change of Haas f1 team that they have got a new titled sponsor, which is MoneyGram? 223.19.112.230 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - who sponsors a Formula One team doesn't constitute a noteworthy change to be mentioned here. These changes are regular and don't impact season, only the team's budget - so it isn't really relevant here. SSSB (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

what about the changes to team principals? shall we mention it as well? 223.19.112.230 (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No, that is a matter for team and personnel articles. Personnel aren't 'entered' into the championship, so who fills what role ultimately isn't that important. If necessary they will be mentioned in the season report, but we don't need to report that there has been in a change of personnel just for the sake of it. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2023

please add a section in the technical regulation change that there will be a weight reduction from 798 kg to 796kg, source: 2023 FiA Formula One Technical Regulation (2023; issue 4) (external site, from fia.com)

The mass of the car, without fuel, must not be less than 798kg 796kg at all times during the Competition

— FiA 2023 Formula One Technical Regulations - issue 4 - 2022-12-07, page 46 section 4.1

223.19.112.230 (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. I think this change in the regulation is so small (2kg, equivilant to a 0.25% reduction) that it risks moving the technical regulations section into the realms of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not the technical regulations and therefore I feel that minor changes in the regulations (which aren't covered in a half-decent level of detail by secondary sources, like the roll-hope regs) shouldn't be included.

For the same reason, I propose we also remove the section on mirror sizes. SSSB (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Las Vegas GP date

Is the GP really on 18 November (a Saturday)? Robertpstubbs (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, around 10pm local time. SSSB (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2023

Please change the team name of alfa romeo back to “Alfa Romeo F1 Team ORLEN” as the team name of Alfa Romeo is still “Alfa Romeo F1 Team ORLEN” on the official entry list given by FIA. 218.188.221.130 (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done This is a WP:COMMONSENSE situation. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Logan Sargeant is a U.S. Citizen and also an American. American is not an exclusive demonym of U.S. Citizens.

Clear as that. Needs to be changed. Lcville72 (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

If he is both, why do we need to change anything? And if he was one, but not the other, what would we need to change? I don't get it. SSSB (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, most recent AMERICAN to reach and race in F1 is Nicholas Latifi from Canada whom debuted in 2020. If anybody wants to comment about US Drivers, well, I believe U.S. Citizens should be used. Lcville72 (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

American is the common English word to describe people from the United States. Here's an excerpt from The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. [16]

Found it in one of the sources on American (word).

JohnMcButts (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous complaint. Canada uses the demonym "Canadian". The United States uses the demonym "America". If you would like sources for that, see the respective articles. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok this is a discussion I am not going to win. I believe this is wrong because being from El Salvador and being American, I don’t like U.S. Citizens appropriate the term. I don’t care how they call themselves, they are as Americans as Canadians, Mexicans and another 32 countries. I firmly believe the term is wrongly used because it excludes too many countries. One more thing, don’t call me ridiculous please. Lcville72 (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not call you ridiculous, I said your complaint is ridiculous. And it is, because the term is not used in the way you are claiming it is. The term isn't being "appropriated", it simply is not used in the manner you describe. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

"Canadians, Mexicans and another 32 countries." are described as people coming from the Americas, not Americans (which is used to describe people from the USA). Respectfully, your complaint has nothing to do with Wikipedia or this article, but the English language and its evolution. SSSB (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Let me clear this up a little bit, if you will indulge me a momentary tangent. Someone BORN a US citizen and who predominantly lives in America or its territories is an American. Someone NOT born a US citizen who subsequently becomes "naturalized" is a [origin country demonym]-American. For example, the comedian John Oliver is a British-American, but nobody would ever call him an American. Lcville72 should correctly refer to themselves as a Salvadoran-American, although that does not somehow make them any less American than a "natural born" American. Nicholas Latifi is a Canadian, not an American. A British driver who lives in Monaco is still a British driver unless they become a naturalised Monégasque, in which case they become a British-Monégasque (or British Monacan). In this instance, Logan Sargeant should be referred to as an American. Anyway, I'll shut up now. 🤣 -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Well thank you, I just think the text should say “first USA driver to reach F1” that’s it. Lcville72 (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it should be American driver. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Sprint in calendar section

@Island92: can you explain the reasoning behind this please: Special:Diff/1140789253 (beyond "this is how we did it in the past", becuase I think this is an improvement on the past). Not only do I not see why it can't also be here? I don't see why it shouldn't be here in the first place? Your solution is to hide this in a couple of notes that explain why extra points are awarded at some events. If different events are held with different formats, that is calendar issue (it also being a results and standings issue is nothing more than coincidence) and I think it is an intergral part of the season's calendar. Can you therefire clarify why you don't think this is the case? SSSB (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The calendar section sums up each event and its race date with the entire table below, where the sprint takes place goes at bay. It is sufficient the note for the table results to distinguish where it took place for that event, but the calendar is something generic regarding the whole season. Island92 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Which events are sprints is a scheduling concern, and yet you want to leave it out of the scheduling section. And if I'm being honest, your arguement isn't making any sense to me. Are you seriously telling me that a note is sufficent? You're giving the location of sprints less importance than wing mirrors being made larger? the calendar is something generic regarding the whole season. - generic? The table, sure. But the information in the section isn't and shouldn't be. We should be providing commentary on the schedule (or race calendar) Normally, this comes in the form of changes to the schedule, but it is also relevant what format events take (of the differ). In the same that 2022_IndyCar_Series distinguishes between oval and street races. The calendar section sums up each event this sentence directly contradicts your position. The most notable part of a sprint weekend is that it is a sprint weekend. This is excactly the kind of information that we should be "sum[ming] up [about] each event".

I'm sorry, but we are an encylopedia, and I think that it is of encylopdic value to summarise which events are sprint events when we summarise all the events that take place. It is the only logical place to do so. And to not point out where sprints are at all (apart from in notes and season reports to explain inconsistencies in the results tables) is (in my opinion) an oversight. SSSB (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is not bolded where sprints take place. The sprints matches with standings result, as well as being a minor race which does not "disturb" the main Grand Prix which takes place on that specific race date as showed by the calendar. The calendar summarises all the events without conciding where this format acts. I find it correct to report a Note just in table results to make it aware that the format took place on those occasions, but not in calendar which is generic, despite this format being part of the season schedule. Island92 (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is not bolded where sprints take place. - not relevant. Firstly, we are not formula1.com. Secondly, the purpose of this page and that page are completely different. And thirdly, I am not exagerating this in the table (which would be the equilivant to sprints being highlighted at Formula1.com) I am just arguing for the appearence of a sentence. a minor race which does not "disturb" the main Grand Prix firstly, it does "distrub" the main Grand Prix because it sets the grid for the main Grand Prix. But what is also significant is that these events are subject to a differing points structure. In theory, these events can be worth up to a 48 point swing. calendar which is generic - this section is not generic. It should not be generic. The only generic thing about it should be the basic structure of the table. Then we should build on this table by supplementing this information (this is what makes it encylopedia rather than a database). This includes specifing changes to the calendar, for example. And, in my opinion, format of the events (where they differ) - also see that this is what they have done at 2022 IndyCar Series. With respect, the approach you are advocting means that we are talking about print events happenening, we talk about changes to the format, and clarify that this format only applies to certain events, but you don't actually want to specify where these events take place? (footnotes in the results table don't count as specifing this, those notes are just explaining anomolies) To me this looks like double standards. SSSB (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I no longer insist.--Island92 (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Article Grade

I believe that the article should be graded higher than Start, as it as many reliable references and in depth information into technical changes, driver changes and the like. WP:ASSESS says that an article with "some references to reliable sources" should be a C grade. Milkk7 (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. @Milkk7: for next time, I recommend you just be bold and do it yourself. I'm also going to update the importance to reflect an ongoing season. SSSB (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Honda RBPT engine model name

The official websites of AlphaTauri and Honda as well as this article from Autosport and this from RaceFans state that the engine name is "Honda RBPTH001", but Island92 (talk · contribs) changed the name to "Honda Red Bull RBPTH001" on the basis that StatsF1 does so. I think the first four sources are more reliable in this case than StatsF1, and the name should be "Honda RBPTH001". What does everyone else think? Carfan568 (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I would go with the official entry list at https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-one-world-championship/season-2023/2023-fia-formula-one-world-championship-entry which has "Honda RBPT" Jsydave (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

That page lists the engine manufacturers, rather than the engine model names, which I was referring to here. I have edited the section title to clarify this. Carfan568 (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Unless Red Bull's website says something else, we should follow the websites of Honda and ALphaTauri (primary sources, more likely to be correct) SSSB (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Cost cap breaches - where do they belong?

I'd included some content on the cost cap breaches committed by Red Bull and Aston Martin under "Financial Regulations", since they were discovered mid-2022 and affect 2023 cars. I'll concede that since the fines are paid outside of the cost cap they aren't relevant, but the 10% wind tunnel reduction is relevant for the 2023 season since nearly 3/4 of the affected period (Oct 2022 - Oct 2023) falls within the 2023 season and we all know that so late in 2022 every team is effectively preparing their 2023 car.

It's material to the sport and this year's championship, and ought to be mentioned somewhere. If not in the 2023 season page, should it be in the main Formula 1 page? Crazindndude (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Your claim that it is material to this year's championship is WP:OR - you haven't sourced this opinion making it yours. And you didn't put it under financial regulations, you put it under financial regulations changes. This article doesn't talk about car development in general, so it needs to be shown that a reliable source believes that this penalty has directly impacted this season - rather than indirectly. In other words, we need someone to argue that a result would have been different if Red Bull had not been penalised. In that case, it would go in the season report, either with the relevant event, or a dedicated sub-section within the season report. You could add a sentence to Red Bull RB19 saying the penalty impacted development though, as it is more relevant there (but you will need a source that directly makes this argument. SSSB (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

There are not going to be any legitimate sources that say results would be different one way or another, because it would be pure speculation. Most commentators have argued the wind tunnel penalty will make little difference. I think it is enough to say that teams received penalties, but any speculation beyond that is unworthy of this project. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Depends how you define legitimate. If Red Bull finish runner-up and Horner (for example) speculates that Red Bull would have won if it weren't for the wind tunnel penalty, I don't see why we shouldn't report that - so long as it is clear that it is opinion and not fact. If we don't have any source that does this, any claim these penalties are relevant is WP:OR. SSSB (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Impactful and material are not the same. By "material", I just mean relevant either to the sport or this year's running of it. A 10% reduction in wind tunnel time is a real thing, and I'd argue it is self evident that any reduction of a team's ability to improve is material to coverage of the sport.

Just as an example, if MLB discovered that a team was corking their bats and penalized them with 10% less batting cage time I'm certain it would be reported on in some capacity. Even if that had zero impact on the final championship order, it is still a thing that occurred and was newsworthy. Crazindndude (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Just because something is newsworthy doesn't make it encylopedic, as explained in WP:NEWS. In my mind, it should only be mentioned here if a) it relates directly to this season (the only season it relates to directly is 2021) or b) a notable entity speculates that it was impactful on a result. SSSB (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2023

In the section season summary, opening rounds: change Lance Stroll finishing in seventh to sixth. 143.176.15.187 (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done --Marbe166 (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Move points column from the end of standings table closer to the driver name

Standings tables look awful after wikipedia redesign. One should scroll table horizontally to see points column:

[17]https://i.postimg.cc/mryhrjMH/Screenshot-2023-03-07-202456.png

[18]https://i.postimg.cc/Y9X96Sd2/Screenshot-2023-03-07-202514.png

Maybe column order like |Num|Driver|Points|race 1|race 2|... would be better?

[19]https://i.postimg.cc/NfxgmFF3/Screenshot-2023-03-07-203220.png Shioritan (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this proposal, scrolling back and forth is unnecessary fiddly and inconvenient. This has actually always been a problem for mobile users (made worse by the insistence to use {{nowrap}}s), with the result that I often use alternate websites when looking at the championship standings, because it is so inconvenient to scroll across all the time. Of course, this will simply mean that we are pushing this problem to individual rounds, but I see that as less of an issue. It does make me wonder though, is it possible to freeze the first two columns when scrolling these tables? SSSB (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps with CSS Positioning Inavolbe (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. This is counterintuitive. The points are the sum of the race results and you should be able to read right to left to understand what's happening in the table. This also priveleges the points total as the most important piece of information. Obviously, the position is the most important, points totals have almost no relevance once the season is over. The race results should always be prioritised. If this inconveniences some individuals who for some reason desire to know the points total of an ongoing season on their mobile devices then so be it. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• This is not counterintuitive at all. Maybe just by your opinion. This is not the fact.
• The race result should never be prioritized. Because why opposite should be?
• In case of prioritizing race result current table doesn't show all race results, so this priority just not works.
• Your opinion about desires of some individuals doesn't matter. We are discussing here about improving of bad table design that just can not show all important data properly.

Shioritan (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

These are my opinions and reasons, and those are your opinions and reasons. I have no reason to be more convinced of yours, but to be completely honest I can't really understand what you mean in your response. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 16:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The points are the sum of the race results - no, they aren't. The points are the sum of the points scored in individual rounds, which are based on the results, these two are not the same thing. you should be able to read right to left to understand what's happening in the table. - you still can. We are just changing the order. Rather than saying "First is Verstappen, his results of [x firsts, y seconds, ...] gives him z points" we will instead be saying "First is Verstappen with z points, with results of [x firsts, y seconds, ...]". I don't see why one is more intuitive than the other. points totals have almost no relevance once the season is over. The race results should always be prioritised. - Given that this table documents the championship standings, individual results are only stictly relevant in the event of a tie-break. So it would make more sense to have points first (as it is this column which indicates if a tie-break is required). I also disagree that points totals have less relevance than results. If you want to check the results of a specific entrant, use their article. The results of a specific round should be found at that article. And I think someone is more likely to want to check how close the standings were than to (lets say) check who had the most podiums, or retrements (the kind of thing where you would need to use this table). So I would be interested to hear your justifaction behind the "relevance" argument. (lets also not forget that the season isn't over so, the "once the season is over" argument is moot at this time. SSSB (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying we would be better off not displaying the race results at all and simply having a table of points, since all that can be found at individual articles. The point of these tables is to provide an overall summary of the season, hence why we have annotations to make it include poles, fastest laps, retirements, non-finishing classifications and sprint results. When looking for a summary of the season, the first and most obvious piece of information is why driver or constructor finished where. The second is an overview of their campaign. Finally, the least useful bit of information in the equation, is what points they scored. Whether the title was won by 88 or 36 points doesn't really matter compared to seeing a season summary (e.g. seeing that Ferrari fell off after the first few races last year gives a lot more context and understanding to the course of the season than seeing that there was a final points difference of 205 in the WCC). It is far more intuitive to read a summary table as "this plus this equals this" than as "this, being the sum of this and this", and far more intuitive to say "this happened and this happened and this was the result" rather than "this was the result and it happened because this happened and this happened. Sure, having things in a logical order is a personal preference, but so is having the points first. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

If standings table is summary of the season races, than why races result go from left to right, but not from top to bottom? Shioritan (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Because we read left to right. Is this some sort of trick question? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

And why calendar races go from top to bottom, if you "read left to right"? Shioritan (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

In the calendar of events you read each row of information (left to right) is about a single round, from first to last in chronological order. In the championship tables each row of information (left to right) is a single competitor, ordered by finishing position. Where is the inconsistency and what comparison are you trying to draw? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

And why chronological order differs from table to table? Why in calendar it goes to the bottom and in standings it goes to the right?

Your "because we read left to right" definitely does not answer this question. Shioritan (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it does, since the tables are showing entirely different things. It's not a relevant or useful comparison and I'm at a loss to understand why you're so inistent on making it. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Because all of your arguments look irrelevant and not disclosing actual state of things.

As user I want to see points without scrolling. Your "It's fine" maybe the source of your total misunderstanding. Shioritan (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, so as I've said the point of the table isn't to show the points total. You want convenience for your use case, but others actually want useful information. In trying to impose this you're now at the point where you're comparing the championship tables to the calendar. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You know nothing about what others want. And I see that you do not want /or maybe can't/ anything to find proper solution that would be useful for all users, but not only to you with your occasional devices. Shioritan (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You could see official driver standings:

https://i.postimg.cc/W4N8qMVx/Screenshot-2023-03-08-222353.png

There are no race finishes, only driver, nation, team & points.

Race results are displayed only at the according race pages.

Also sometimes drivers could take some points penalties and just sum of race point would not give you right number of points. Shioritan (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• What F1.com chooses to do does not impact on what we do. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Anyway current format of table never show race results. With points or without. One never can see season summary. Just part of them. NASCAR 2023 has not 23, but 36 races. How to show all of them? And how will table look like if f1 or any race championship would have for example 50 or 100 races? Do you offer to show only 15-20 from them? Is this valuable season summary? Shioritan (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Are you trying to ask about wide tables? Because NASCAR is doing just fine. Regardless, F1 does not have 50 or 100 races, it has 23, and that is a perfectly workable number. Even a number as high as 36 is very clearly still workable. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Are you joking about perfection? What is perfect in table with horizontal scroll bar and visual defects with layout of elements? Shioritan (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  The standings page on f1.com is not the “official” championship table. FIA is the governing body in charge of running the races, formulating the regulations and crediting the results. Tvx1 07:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well. Why table could not just fit the page like table of official fia.com?

  https://i.postimg.cc/bqLVZyQZ/Screenshot-2023-03-11-011025.png

  Is this so hard or impossible task? Just fit without defects for all users who want to see full table, but not chunk of it. Shioritan (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  That is exactly wHat we currently do. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Do you see defects in current table & page design?

  https://i.postimg.cc/3wxhsS7B/Screenshot-2023-03-11-011025.png Shioritan (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, actually, I don't see it. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  But they exist in form of excess scrollbars and hiding side menu list by oversized table.

  So if you doesn't have needed qualification to detect this it is very sad for overall quality of Wikipedia. Shioritan (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  I do not see the formatting errors you do when I visit the page on my devices, and that is not a matter of my "qualifications". That I cannot replicate the problems you are facing is not a rebuttal of my argument, it actually counts against yours. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a resource just for "your devices". And not your resource. If other users have problems with layouts defects on their devices, it would be better to try to fix this problem instead of ignoring or prohibiting it. Shioritan (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  And it's not just for your devices either. I cannot replicate your issue so I can make no progress towards fixing it. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  It is for all devices but not for elite users with proper devices that enjoy of barriers and prohibitions. Shioritan (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Just because you can not replicate an issue does not mean it doesn't exist. The screenshots are also very clear. Not all the coumns fit on the screen.

  Are you saying we would be better off not displaying the race results at all and simply having a table of points, since all that can be found at individual articles. no. Because then I would have said that directly. I'm just arguing that the results of individual rounds is the least relevant and least important peice of information. Suggesting that this is my argument is like if I suggested you wanted to get rid of the points total, becuase you said "points totals have almost no relevance once the season is over." Please don't put words in my mouth.

  The point of these tables is to provide an overall summary of the season, - no its not. That's why we stopped doing one row per driver. You just choose to use it that way.

  When looking for a summary of the season, the first and most obvious piece of information is why driver or constructor finished where. - the reason why a driver or constructor finished where is the points. You've just argued that the first and most obvious piece of information people look for is the points total.

  The second is an overview of their campaign. Finally, the least useful bit of information in the equation, is what points they scored. This is nothing but how you choose to use the table, but the reallity is that this table exists to tell people the championship standings, and what determines the standings is the points totals (and then the results in the event of a tie-breaker)

  It is far more intuitive to read a summary table as "this plus this equals this" than as "this, being the sum of this and this", and far more intuitive to say "this happened and this happened and this was the result" rather than "this was the result and it happened because this happened and this happened. clearly we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

  With the greatest possible respect, these tables exist to convey the championship standings, and the championhsip standings are determined by the points totals. This is why I believe this information should be proritised. I am struggling to see how your argument for not prirotising the points (the basis of the standings) extends beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT because I use the table for something other than its primary purpose. SSSB (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Let me put it another way. If what you're saying is true, then the only important piece of information for these tables to consider are the drivers' positions and points. Anything else is secondary. However, the points total is determined by the results of the season. Why do we include the results of the season if the points are the only important piece of information? Because having a single table which includes all points-scoring results (and non-points scoring results as I have mentioned above) is the best way to concisely summarise the season. The order of the points totals fromm greatest to smallest determines the championship, yes, but the actual precise number of the points doesn't matter - we logically know that first place had the greatest number, second place the second most, and so on (except in cases of ties where the countback is used). The championship table's primary purpose is indeed the championship standings - I have never disputed that, that was actually what I called the primary concern (I intended to write which, not why, which is why the sentence is grammatically wrong). If you know VER and RBR won the '22 championships, you know they scored the most points - but how many they precisely scored isn't that important really (with a few significant exceptions like 2007). Once you know where they finished, the most important bit of information is why they finished there, and the most logical way to present this is chronologically working from left to right through the season which sums to produce the points total.

  no its not. That's why we stopped doing one row per driver. On this point you are completely mistaken, we stopped using one row per driver because which driver scored what wasn't relevant to the constructors' championship. Having the best result on the top row allows for the best overall summary of the constructors' season. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 14:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Its just your opinion that quantity of points isn't important. You can not proof this. This not a fact, but your opinion.

  And if you really want to show summary of the season than SHOW it. For now there is NO such showing. Only chunk with awful layouts. Screenshots clearly proof this.

  If you have no qualification in UX/UI try to delegate this task to more experienced people. Shioritan (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  At this point you're not even trying to criticise my reasoning, you're just telling me I'm wrong and slagging me off. If you can't advance your case for change it might be time to give up. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Dude, I see the problem. You are ignoring it.

  I try to propose four different solutions:

  • Move point column by price of subtle shift of races results. I think that this is very cheap price
  • Or we can change cells margins to squeeze column widths to fit all table in narrowed new wiki design space
  • Or we can for example put finish positions and other info /about fast lap, sprint and pole/ into two string — again to squeeze column widths
  • Or /the most radical and actually I don't like this/ we can swap columns and rows to order race results from top to bottom

  All of this aims single purpose — to make table design and UX better. From awful to at least decent. Because honestly in comparison with many other sites it really looks bad and this is sad for me.

  For example background coloring of finishes /in legend/ looks like web 1.0 from 90th. These are Excel-98 colors. Also DNS and C has white color, but DNP, EX etc has blank color. And in practice user can't to differ one from another by color scheme. This is example of bad design. This is sad.

  But I'm not try to radically change all. I propose one slight alteration.

  And you? You do not want to change anything. And you show no intention to find the best solution for all /not only for you and your devices/. So this behavior is very sad for all community and for wiki developing. Shioritan (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  1. As I have alredy explained, that is contrary to the purpose of the table. Further, doing this would not solve the issue you are encountering with table width.
  2. We could simply reduce the scaling of the table, or as others have mentioned there are CSS tricks that could allow for a solution to the table width issue.
  3. I don't understand what your third proposal is.
  4. As I have already explained, this is ridiculous, so I'm glad we agree it's not a viable option.

  Again, I do not experience any issues with the table design or UX of the table. You keep saying that this is my "opinion", but the issues you are experiencing are only your contrary opinion. You also mention a range of aesthetic opinions about the design of the table looking outdated, which counts for nothing, since these are again simply your opinions. There are other considerations that go into these decisions, such as accessibility, which requires sufficient contrast between different cell colours and between the text and background colour. There are also technical reasons for why DNS/C are white and DNP/EX are blank which relates to the sort of participation an entrant had in each round.

  Once again, you are simply sharing your distaste for the current design scheme, which is an opinion I do not have in common with you. I cannot replicate the issues you have experienced with table width, and the article renders perfectly fine on my computer in Vector 2010 and Vector 2022. On mobile, the table renders as a scrollable field which is the same for all tables on Wikipedia. If there is indeed some table width issue that does not relate to your personal scaling settings on your computer and browser, then further investigation into a solution may be required. However, I have not been able to find such an issue using default settings.

  So no, Shioritan, I do not want to change anything, and I remain completely unconvinced by your arguments. I have repeatedly explained why your "solutions" are not the best option. Your "slight alteration" is a fundamentally counterintuitive change to the way we present results on Wikipedia that would reduce the net usefulness of these tables. You can call my behaviour sad all you like but it will not disprove my reasoning. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  You know, table may looks like these:

  | BAH | SAU | ... | Pts

  VER | 1 | 2 | ... | 357

  It is also useful. Anyway doesn't matter. Shioritan (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  It matters to me. SSSB (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Clearly this is going nowhere fast. I say we keep it how it is because it is designed to go left-right. Plus if we change it once we're going to have to change it for every season. BMB YT 500000 (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

We don't have to do anything. Anyway, this only applies to very long seasons, so we would only need to look at the last 10 years or so. SSSB (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You two are as bad as each other. Both of you are now making arguments along the lines of "my opinion is worth more than yours".

And as I have explained to you, it is not contrary to the purpose of the table, it is only contrary to how you use the table. The purpose of the table is to show the championship standings, and the championship standings is determined by who has the most points.

On this point you are completely mistaken, we stopped using one row per driver because which driver scored what wasn't relevant to the constructors' championship. Having the best result on the top row allows for the best overall summary of the constructors' season. - I'm afraid it is you who is completely mistaken. We stopped using one row per car number (which is what it actually was) because it has no impact on the championship, and career numbers resulted in excess rows (Aston Martin's results would be over three rows last year). It had nothing to do with allowing for easier interpretations of individual rounds. This wasn't even considered (because that is beyond the table's purpose). You'll notice that pre-2013 championship tables still use one row per car number

If what you're saying is true, then the only important piece of information for these tables to consider are the drivers' positions and points. Anything else is secondary. not "only" but certainly "most". This is why Formula1.com and BBC don't include that info. And why Autosport (who suffer from this issue too) have the points first, and then the results. Why do we include the results of the season if the points are the only important piece of information? to supplement the points totals. To give context. That's what your "overall summary of the season" is, additional context to supplement the points totals showing how a competitor secured their points.

If you know VER and RBR won the '22 championships, you know they scored the most points - but how many they precisely scored isn't that important really this is just your opinion and I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree. I would say that how the points gap is significanly more important that how strongly they performed in any single round, or how their relative perfomance evolved.

And the truth is that most of your points are moot, because all the characteristics of this table are being retained, it is only the order of columns which we propose to change. So you can still do everything you do now. You haven't explained the harm in this change, only why you disagree with the principle. We have (tried) to explain why we think the current system is (for the sake of consistency in language) harmful for someone who wants to read the table. Finally, you keep saying that this table width issue doesn't affect you - that is irrelevant, so stop bringing it up. SSSB (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Might I remind all of you that tables are not a substitute for prose. If you want to see points gaps and the evolvement of them the season report is the place. The tables are supposed to be a simple representation of the outcome of the championship. Its layout is the result of years of establish practice based on the most logical way to do it. We start with the championship positions, then the individual races results as they combine to the points totals. We use the most instinctive ordering, per the Arabic writing system we use here, of left to right and top to bottom. I'll also point out there is no such thing as a perfect table. There will always be a reader somewhere who as a personal issue with it. That's why we operate on consensus and not unanimous agreement. Neither do wo change decades long established practice on the whims of one editor. Lastly, as the initiator of the discussion that led to the change of format of the WCC tables, I can say to lack relevance was actually very much my motivation to start that discussion.

Now for the issue with the width of the new default UI of English Wikipedia. That new UI has not been established as going to stay (certainly not as is) and certainly the reduced and fixed default with. There is an RFC still running on the new default UI and I strongly invite you to contribute if you haven't already. Tvx1 01:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

About "Its layout is the result of years of establish practice".

You know, any system has its limit. I think that this years-proofed practice works good with numerous seasons with 10 to maybe 15 races. Because there is no width problem. But nothing is eternal. There is a trend of increasing f1 races per year.

And the choice comes. To do nothing. Or try to find better structure /if it exists/.

So I understand your reasons. But even dinos extinct sooner or later. Shioritan (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

We started using those tables when the calendar had already exceeded 15 races a long time, so no that's the limit. And as 5225C's Nascar example shows, we've not reached any practical limit at all yet.Tvx1 18:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

My apologies if this has already been mentioned in this tediously long thread, but why not put the points total at both ends of the columns? The point about forcing the user to scroll to see the points is well made, but the counter argument that essentially the table is meant to be read from left to right also makes sense. Putting the points total at both ends satisfies both needs whilst only adding a single, narrow column to the table. Duplicating a column in this way is common practice in wide tables, just as duplicating row headings is common practice with large datasets. I don't know if it is technically feasible, but it may be possible to create the duplicate column with the use of variables so that only one column need be updated after each race. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the points totals column is determined by a template ({{f1stat}} and its equivalent?) So it sounds like a plan to me. SSSB (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This is good! I'd like to hear from others before making a change that might precipitate an edit war. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This solution would be totally satisfying for me. Shioritan (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. Only points on the right as tables in 1950–2022 articles.--Island92 (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

As I have explained to you multiple times, across multiple different ideas - this argument is rubbish. Firstly, there is no need for all articles to follow the same format. Secondly, insisting they do and reverting any changes is unconstructive, as it means that nothing will ever improve (because few people have time to change 74 articles in one go.), and I would argue that this behavious is disruptive. Finally, if you want all the tables to look the same, you can change them. I have reverted your reverts, as this is a non-reason. If you have a genuine reason, feel free to bring it up. SSSB (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Having points information showed twice in the same table is just elementary and ridiculous. "There is no need for all articles to follow the same format". That's true, but the whole picture in 1950–2022 articles tables is always the same: tables feature the same contents and I don't see the need to report two points columns. Is that a joke or what?--Island92 (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

To name a proposal ridiculous is much more ridiculous than the proposal. Is that a joke or what?

You can name proposal excessive for example and it would be fact. But ridiculosity is just your ridiculous opinion. Not the fact. Think about it. Shioritan (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Potential compromise solution: Is there any way to detect desktop vs mobile / the screen width / if the table is being cut off, and automatically show/hide the left-side points column if it is, but hide it if it isn't? That way you'd 1) always be able to see one points column, and 2) never have to see two points columns at the same time. AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the wiki markup to know whether or not this is possible. It would be trivial in CSS though. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a floating points column is the most logical and aesthetically pleasing solution. I also agree with Island92 that two points columns is ridiculous. One column at the end of the table is all we need, full stop. Having two is still preferable to moving one column ahead of the results though (which would be the most absurd "solution" of all). Again, I'm not sure of the technical solution here. I believe MediaWiki does support CSS but no doubt there is a policy somewhere saying that's a no-no. The best course of action may be to reach out on the village pump or some similar forum to see what more technically capable editors think. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Having two is still preferable to moving one column ahead of the results though (which would be the most absurd "solution" of all)

If it's absurd, why does the FIA use it in their own points table, which is actually the source for our table? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm not the FIA. That they do that is also a perpetual source of bewilderment for me and it's just as ridiculous there as it would be here. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe so called absurd and ridiculosity live only in your head as an opinion, but not the fact? Maybe your arguments are ridiculous? Maybe you just can't understand FIA decisions and this causes bewilderment for you? Shioritan (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're on about and I'm not going to continue giving credibility to these inane responses with my time and effort. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

About your ridiculous replies. I see that you describe not only my proposals with word "ridiculous". As far as this is only your opinion, but not the fact, I have also an opinion that your opinion is ridiculous.

Simple, isn't it? Shioritan (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe this is the best format with the current situation. While the future UI is being decided, having two totals columns, to accomodate both the left to right additive format and those who are unable to view the entire table at once, appears to be optimal.

A future option which appears unavailable/impossible at the moment could be to ‘freeze’ the end totals column so it is always in view, thus satisfying both of the arguments I mentioned above.

Personally, I use the table to check the points standings as I watch the races, so I was pleasantly surprised by the additional points column. I have not yet viewed the table on desktop where I also use the old UI but I believe this current table design works best at least until the future UI is decided. Jcblyth (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Well I think the two-column points solution is working very well because it provides an at-a-glance view without the need to scroll or swipe for the details. I would much prefer a solution that moves the end column to the beginning for mobile viewing, but in the absence of that I think this works well enough. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is the new Wikipedia view system. I'm keeping the old one which does not cause the issue to make the table work as you desire (one points column). Go to setting and set the old one and it's solved. User Shioritan please be respectful towards other user. Just because we give our opinion does not mean is ridiculous just because things are going your way. I can say having two points columns is ridiculous for other 1,000 times if you agree. And I don't change my idea.--Island92 (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that "ridiculous" word is not a sign of respect at first.

For me it's ok if my proposal would not be implemented. I'm not insist. But opinions about ridiculosity are very disrespectful. You could say you don't like the proposal and it is not suitable or appropriate. But not with so offensive word.

Anyway I'm glad that two weeks later somebody has recognized that there is a problem with new wikipedia design. This was my very initial thought. Shioritan (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

With respect, this is only ridiculous if you are fortune enough to have a wide enough screen to see all the columns. Otherwise it is not ridiculous at all. And you can say that it is because of Wikipedia's new veiw system, and say that you don't use that system. But most Wikipedia veiwers don't log in and don't have a choice. The claim that having the points column before the results is ridiculous also carries no real wieght (and borders on ridiculous itself) when the evidence of this thread suggests its the most common system.

Is having two points columns ideal? No. But compromise rarely is, and this is the only situation which we can all at least accept? SSSB (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Another reminder that the "new view system" is not set in stone, especially not the default limited width. The community already arrived at a consensus to rollback that aspect and active efforts to implement that are underway. Also can we please wait to change anything to our tables until such time we actually achieved some consensus? I have researching ways to make the tables horizontally scrolling and the points column sticky, but it appears that making a column on the right sticky is not that simple. Tvx1 18:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tvx1: It is my understanding that we already had a consensus. It has been stable since March 22 and now you've gone against this apparent consensus to change it. I know it isn't an ideal solution, but it is certainly a workable compromise until a better solution is available. This kind of slow-motion edit warring is very annoying. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

CSS method

Just to get into the weeds a bit, if we can figure out a way to target the table specifically, the CSS to make the last column "sticky" is quite trivial:

tr {
  position: relative;
}
th:last-child, td:last-child {
  position: sticky;
  right: 0;
}

The last column, which in our case would be the points, would always be visible. Here's an example of that CSS working. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Since nobody commented on this approach, I've tried it out. It works on my machine but your mileage may vary, as they say. Feel free to revert if it breaks anything that I'm unaware of. I can add it to the constructors table if everyone likes it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It hasn't changed anything for me, but this is my preferred solution so if it's working for everyone I'd go for implementing it everywhere. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@5225C: What browser are you using? I can only check on Chrome and Edge (Chromium) at the moment. Don't forget it only works if you make the window narrow enough to need a horizontal scrollbar. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It works fine for me in Firefox, but the gridlines are now missing from the points column, so please reinstate them if you can. Marbe166 (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. I am getting an issue where it won't work on my mobile, but when I selected "mobile view" on my laptop it does work though. Just an FYI that it not working on some devices may be an issue. SSSB (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. I tried explicitly setting a bottom border to bring back those gridlines for Firefox, but it was ignored. Not sure what is going on there. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I have not been able to find a way to bring back those gridlines in Firefox. Working with tables in this software is awkward! If this is considered unacceptable, I think it would be best if the sticky column is reverted. What does everyone think? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've figured out that

border-collapse: collapse

is what is causing the gridlines of the sticky column to disappear in Firefox. The only way to restore it is to set the table to

border-collapse: separate

and set the border spacing to zero, but this causes the borders to have a double thickness issue. I can fix it if I explicitly set the border in every single table cell, but this seems excessively complicated. So the choice is basically:

1. Sticky but with no gridlines in Firefox
2. Sticky with double-width gridlines
3. Forget the whole thing

I'm inclined to forget the whole thing because it doesn't seem to be working consistently for everyone. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with 1&2. Option 3 is a little silly. It being inconsistent is better than not having it all - at least some of us will have the benefit. SSSB (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Financial Regulations

Hi, can someone pls clean up the following sentence? """Teams have also agreed ***to*** give the FIA easier access to factories when cost cap audits are being carried out in order to more easily ensure that teams adhere to the cost cap.""" Just need to add the word 'to' in. Thanks 120.16.176.137 (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Done 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Duplicated Notes

Notes d and f contain the same information. Note f should be deleted and d used in it's place where required. Quoting (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Done 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The scoring system has to distinguish were sprints take place.--Island92 (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. But we can use the same note for both. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@5225C: the same should be done for 2021 and 2022.--Island92 (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Done.--Island92 (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2023

There is an error in the "World Drivers' Championship standings" as Fernando Alonso finished 3rd in both races and George Russel finished 4th (not 3rd) in the second race (SAU Saudi Arabia). Source: https://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/2023/races/1142/saudi-arabia/race-result.html Sasa4454 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: As your source states, these are the provisional rankings. It looks like a 10-second time penalty will be applied to Alonso, which would put him in 4th place. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Entries

Added that Alfa Romeo initially entered round 2 as Alfa Romeo F1 Team Kick. The FIA then released a second entry list with the entrant being named Alfa Romeo F1 Team Stake as usual. On top of that, Alfa Romeo took part in FP1 as Alfa Romeo F1 Team Kick, from FP2 onwards as Alfa Romeo F1 Team Stake. Island92 (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

But it Australian GP (Round 3), they still use “Alfa Romeo F1 Team Kick” as entry name in official entry list. Shall anyone make a change? 218.188.221.130 (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done.--Island92 (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Swap F1R2023 template usage from Constructors' to Drivers' standings table

At the moment, {{F1R2023}} is the database template for nearly all F1 race results on wikipedia, e.g. Fernando Alonso, Aston Martin AMR23, Aston Martin in Formula One, Mercedes engine customers' Grand Prix results all transclude from F1R2023|ALO|SAU, so race results can be updated in a centralised location.

However, two standings tables all full of F1R2023 transclusions (each of which also transclude {{Coltit}} and occasionally {{Small}}) represents approximately one thousand template calls, which breaks this article's transclusion limit - we can only afford enough calls to have one table supplied by F1R2023, and the other has to be formatted manually with inline CSS style.

F1R2023 stores information by driver. At the moment, {{F1 Drivers Standings}}, which depends on the drivers, is formatted manually. Editors will have to do the manual formatting when updating at the end of a GP, and then move around the rows to reflect the new standings. {{F1 Constructors Standings}} is sorted by team, and in each team double-row, each GP is sorted by team's best result on top, i.e. nothing to do with the driver. Editors have to go into each double-row and tell F1R2023 which teammate placed higher in each team-race combo, and then move around the rows to reflect the new standings.

If we swap F1R2023 usage around, the only thing editors will have to do to the Drivers' table is sort the drivers. (The Constructors' table will require the same amount of work as the Drivers' does now.) AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a WP:RfC, so I don't know why it is in the section title. To awnser the questions, this would in theory mean less edits to update the tables. As we would only have to update the drivers standings when the positions change (which doesn't happen every race, only most) SSSB (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

This swap does not reduce the overall post-race workload. Inavolbe (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It does, as I pointed out earlier, if there is no change in the drivers' standings we don't need to touch at all. But we will always have to swap results around in the constructors table. SSSB (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The probability of no change in the drivers standings is extremely small. Even in this rare case, the reduction of post-race workload is almost negligible as the much-discussed exchange of drivers results in {{F1 Constructors Standings}} is technically very simple and fast. The proposed implementation suffers in one more point since it turns the automatic mathematical calculation of sums of drivers standings into a manual process. Inavolbe (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The proposed implementation suffers in one more point since it turns the automatic mathematical calculation of sums of drivers standings into a manual process. - you could just look up the points totals at the same time as looking up the results and (since you aren't looking up the points totals) this problem would exist with both tables. At worst it is the same amount of work regardless of which tables uses the template. SSSB (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2023

The positions in the standings for Redbull in the Constructors championship are reversed. It shows as if Verstappen had won all races and is 2 for him and one for Pérez. 2806:2F0:90C0:D794:644:1EC6:2B03:D652 (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done Read the notes below the table before asking for the table to be changed. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2023 regarding sprint format of 2023 Azerbaijan Grand Prix

Please added that in Azerbaijan GP (weekend sprint race), new weekend format will be used, source/proof:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-teams-agree-to-pursue-standalone-sprint-format-for-baku/10452000/
https://racer.com/2023/04/06/all-teams-agreed-on-sprint-changes-to-two-race-f1-weekends/ 218.188.221.130 (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

what i mean is that please add a section in sporting regulation that tells people about the newly modified timetable for Sprint round of Azerbaijan GP 218.188.208.98 (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)